-
ROMAS 14 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE
ITRODUCTIO
This passage deals with a number of paradoxes. Can the same
action or behavior be
both good and evil? Can what is right also be wrong? Can what I
enjoy and thank
God for, be a sin for you to enjoy? Can I do something that is
okey with God, but it
still becomes a sin?
How are we to know the will of God with any certainty? The will
of God falls into
three categories that help us discern his will. A person going
to a doctor and getting
the doctors advice illustrates the point.
When Christians of equal love for Christ and His Word, and with
equal
intelligence have different convictions on what is right and
wrong, how are we
to know who is right, and who best knows the will of God? Romans
14 is
Paul's struggle with this issue. He helps us see some principles
to use in
making decisions. The over all breakdown is this:
1. God permits some things-verse 2.
2. God prescribes some things-verse 3.
3. God prohibits some things-verse 13.
HOKE, There seems to be something within each of us that wants
to set up rules of
conduct laws for living. We would like to have a simple answer
for every
situation we face. But some situations are not that simple.
We want simple answers to every issue, but that is unrealistic,
for there are no
simple answers to many issues. It is because people see things
from different
perspectives and with different backgrounds and different
interests and goals.
Christians are on all sides of political issues and many are
Democrats and many are
Republicans and many are Independents. They are divided on many
social issues,
and just about every issues there is you will find Christians on
opposite sides.
Why is it that Christians are usually on both sides of most
every controversial issue?
Differences are inevitable because of different backgrounds and
traditions. James
W. Crawford writes,
"There is a broad range of members in that church: Jews,
gentiles, men
and women of various religious background, or no religious
background--a
miniature of cosmopolitan Rome. The conflict seems to bubble
up
between members who practice their piety in different ways.
There
is, on the one hand, what we might call a conservative
-
camp. The conservatives believe that in order to be true
to the faith and their religious identity they must adhere
to
a rigid diet, make certain days sacrosanct, dress in a
particular
fashion, assemble their worship in a specific order. These
practices,
they believe, are basic to the faithful expression of their
religious
faith. On the other hand, what we will call the liberals, see
these particular
practices as largely irrelevant. The liberals would make any day
the Sabbath
as Christ had redeemed all the time. They set aside prayer
rituals,
dietary laws, dress codes as being non-essential because of
their
new freedom in Christ. And here's the rub: The conservative
faction looks on the liberal faction as permissive,
libertarian sellouts, finger-to-the- wind Christians, devoid
of discipline, accommodating to trends of the times,
betrayers
of tradition. The liberals see the conservatives
as pinched, rigid, doctrinaire, confusing trivialities with
the
real mandates of the Gospel, those who need mundane
practices
to prop up their faith. As a result, the Roman congregation
seethes
with mutual hostility and contempt. The separate factions
deride,
mock, and malign each other. And for Paul, the worst thing
they
do is to call into question the integrity of one another's
faith.
If you don't do it my way, you're outside the pale. If you
don't believe the way I do, you're a heretic, a pagan, a
religious
fraud.
It is always God's will that His children live in harmony with
one another. Unity is
essential for there to be victory over the forces of
darkness.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity!
(Psa.
133:1)
MARK COPELAD
1. An important part of the Christian life is getting along
with
brethren...
a. Jesus prayed for unity among believers - Jn 17:20-23
b. Paul condemned division among Christians - 1 Co 1:10-13
c. Jesus died to make Jew and Gentile one new man and one body -
Ep
2:14-16
2. Unity did not come easily in the early church...
a. Jewish Christians were reluctant to accept Gentile
Christians
- cf. Ac 15:1-5
b. Knowledgeable Christians were not always considerate - cf. 1
Co
8:10-12
3. Unity does not come easily in the church today...
a. People come into the kingdom from all sorts of religious
-
backgrounds
b. Their level of knowledge, their rate of spiritual growth,
varies
widely
Tom Roberts writes, "Our text to be analyzed, Romans
14:1-15:7, beautifully sets forth the parameters of our
liberties in Christ. Counter-
balancing between the tendency to bind where God has not bound
and giving license
to sin, this passage advocates fellowship through the respect of
each brother's
liberties. Without the truth of these verses, Christians will be
hopelessly splintered
in as many pieces as there are opinions or else be invaded by
sinful doctrine and
practices The sufficiency of God's revelation clearly defines
what is required and
forbidden 2 John 9-11; Jude 3). In these areas we have no choice
but to obey. But
the sufficient revelation also establishes the category of
things allowed, also known
as authorized liberties,options and expediencies,matters of
indifference to God.
Here, we may allow differences among brethren without
compromising any
principle of truth. The early preachers in America recognized
this as they sought to
restore pure religion in their generation. Their cry was: In
matters of faith, unity; in
matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity."
We see three categories of behaviour in this passage.
Things that are right=the commanded.
Things that are wrong=the forbidden.
Things that dont matter=the permitted.
Some people say the first two are not right, for all is relative
and you cannot put
anything as absolutely right or wrong. Others say the last one
is not right for
everything is either black or white and nothing is relative.
These both have one
thing in common, they are both wrong, for the Bible makes it
clear there are
absolutes and their are relatives. Liberals question the first
two and
conservatives the last one. If you are always a liberal, or
always a conservative,
you will be always wrong at some point. Some things are always
right and some
always wrong and some things that are always, or rather most
always neutral. I
say most always, because Paul makes it clear that even something
that is okey is
wrong if you hurt others by doing it. There is never anything
wrong with
throwing a baseball, except when it is through my front window,
or anybody
elses.
MACARTHUR, How do we deal with the issues of life that are not
moral in and of
themselves? Such issues as food, drink, recreation, television,
movies, books,
magazines, sports, Sunday activities, cards, games, smoking,
hair styles, clothing
styles, music styles, etc., etc.
I went away to college, at a very narrow, kind of circumscribed
legalistic school, and
everything was reduced to rules. We had rules for everything. In
fact, we used to say
the school song was, "I don't smoke, and I don't chew, and I
don't go with girls that
do!" And that sort of summed up the whole approach to spiritual
life. Everything
-
was reduced to some kind of list of things that were forbidden.
That's pretty typical
for an older generation of Christians. That is pretty typical
today for a more
contemporary church in other parts of the world. Certainly the
church in Eastern
Europe has many traditions and many rules that binds its conduct
in nonmoral
issues. One of the things that struck me as a fascinating thing
about the Church in
the Soviet Union is that if you are really spiritual, you button
all the buttons on your
coat. If you have any of them unbuttoned that is a sign of a
lack of spirituality. If
you are sitting on the platform and your legs are crossed or
your feet are crossed,
someone will poke you and say please uncross your legs or
uncross your feet, that is
not a spiritual way to behave.
How do you act toward other believers when their behavior doesnt
meet your
standard? What do you do when you see a believer engaging in
what you call
questionable activity? How do you react when someone tries to
make you over into
their image? The issue is Liberty verses Legalism.
The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing
judgment on disputable matters.
BARES, Him that is weak - The design here is to induce
Christians to receive to their fellowship those who had scruples
about the propriety of certain things, or that might have special
prejudices and feelings as the result of education or former habits
of belief. The apostle, therefore, begins by admitting that such an
one may be weak, that is, not fully established, or not with so
clear and enlarged views about Christian liberty others might
have.
In the faith - In believing. This does not refer to saving faith
in Christ, for he might have that; but to belief in regard to the
things which the apostle specifies, or which would come into
controversy. Young converts have often a special delicacy or
sensitiveness about the lawfulness of many things in relation to
which older Christians may be more fully established. To produce
peace, there must be kindness, tenderness, and faithful teaching;
not denunciation, or harshness, on one side or the other.
Receive ye - Admit to your society or fellowship: receive him
kindly, not meet with a cold and harsh repulse; compare
Rom_15:7.
Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do
not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the
matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by
denunciation; and thus, by the natural reaction of such a course,
confirming him in his doubts. Or, do not deal with him in such a
manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about
meats, days, etc. (Stuart.) The leading idea here - which all
Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry
denunciation of
-
a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may
have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more
in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To
receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to
talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far
greater tendency to overcome his scruples. In questions which now
occur about modes of dress, about measures and means of promoting
revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by far the wisest
course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to
induce him to think as we do. Greek, Unto doubts or fluctuations of
opinions or reasonings. Various senses have been given to the
words, but the above probably expresses the true meaning.
CLARKE, Him that is weak in the faith - By this the apostle most
evidently means the converted Jew, who must indeed be weak in the
faith, if he considered this distinction of meats and days
essential to his salvation. See on Rom_14:21 (note).
Receive ye - Associate with him; receive him into your religious
fellowship; but when there, let all religious altercations be
avoided.
Not to doubtful disputations - . These words have been variously
translated and understood. Dr. Whitby thinks the sense of them to
be this; Not discriminating them by their inward thoughts. Do not
reject any from your Christian communion because of their
particular sentiments on things which are in themselves
indifferent. Do not curiously inquire into their religious
scruples, nor condemn them on that account. Entertain a brother of
this kind rather with what may profit his soul, than with curious
disquisitions on speculative points of doctrine. A good lesson for
modern Christians in general.
GILL, Him that is weak in the faith,.... This address is made to
the stronger and more knowing Christians among the Romans, how to
behave towards those that were inferior in light and knowledge to
them, with regard to things of a ritual and ceremonial kind: and by
"him that is weak in the faith", is meant, either one that is weak
in the exercise of the grace of faith, who has but a glimmering
sight of Christ; who comes to him in a very feeble and trembling
manner; who believes his ability to save him, but hesitates about
his willingness; who casts himself with a peradventure on him; and
who is attended with many misgivings of heart, faintings of spirit,
and fluctuation of mind, about his interest in him: or one that is
weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge
in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more
affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from
error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of
grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very
fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children
tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: or rather one that
is weak in his knowledge of that branch of the doctrine of faith,
which concerns Christian liberty; and that part of it particularly,
which respects freedom from the ceremonial law: it designs one, and
chiefly a Jew, who though a believer in Christ, and an embracer of
the other truths of the Gospel, yet had but very little knowledge
of Gospel liberty; but though that believers were to observe all
the rituals of the Mosaic dispensation, not knowing that they were
abolished by Christ. The phrase is Jewish; it is (m) said,
-
"what is the meaning of the phrase, in Rephidim, Exo_17:1 it
signifies such as are of
weak hands; as if it had been said, because the Israelites were
,"weakintheir
faith".''
Theadvicetheapostlegives,inreferencetosuchaperson,isto
receivereceivereceivereceivehim;notonlyintotheiraffections,andlovehimequally,beingabelieverinChrist,asone
ofthesamesentimentswiththem,onlyinthismatter,butalsointochurchfellowshipwiththem.
TheSyriacversionreadsit,,"givehimthehand":intokenofcommunion,aform
usedinadmissionofmembers.TheGentileswereapttoboastagainst,andlookwithsome
contemptupontheJews,andwerereadytoobjecttotheircommunion,becauseoftheirwantof
lightandknowledgeinthesematters;butthiswasnobarofcommunion,noroughtapersontobe
rejectedonaccountofhisweakness,eitherinthegrace,orinthedoctrineoffaith,whenit
appearshehasthetruegraceofGod;andmuchlessonaccountofhisweaknessinthatbranchof
it,concerningChristianliberty;forsinceChristdoesnotbreakthebruisedreed,norquenchthe
smokingflax,nordespisethedayofsmallthings,churchesshouldnot:itmayalsointenda
receivingofsuchintointimateconversation,attheirprivatemeetingsandconferences;taking
particularnoticeofthem;givingthemproperinstructions;prayingwiththemandforthem;
endeavouringtobuildthemupintheirmostholyfaith,andtobringthemintotheknowledgeof
thosethingstheyareweakin;bearingtheirweaknessespatiently,andbearingwiththemingreat
tenderness:thussuchshouldbereceived,
butnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputations;tovainjanglingandperversedisputings,suchaswillrather
perplexthaninformthem;andwillleavetheirmindsdoubtfulandinsuspense,anddothemmore
harmthangood.
HERY, We have in this chapter,
I. An account of the unhappy contention which had broken out in
the Christian church. Our Master had foretold that offences would
come; and, it seems, so they did, for want of that wisdom and love
which would have prevented discord, and kept up union among
them.
1. There was a difference among them about the distinction of
meats and days; these are the two things specified. There might be
other similar occasions of difference, while these made the most
noise, and were most taken notice of. The case was this: The
members of the Christian church at Rome were some of them
originally Gentiles, and others of them Jews. We find Jews at Rome
believing, Act_28:24. Now those that had
-
been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial
appointments touching meats and days. This, which had been bred in
the bone with them, could hardly be got out of the flesh, even
after they turned Christians; especially with some of them, who
were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They
were not well instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial
law by the death of Christ, and therefore retained the ceremonial
institutions, and practised accordingly; while other Christians
that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian
liberty, made no such difference
JAMISO, Rom_14:1-23. Same subject continued - Christian
forbearance.
The subject here, and on to Rom_15:13, is the consideration due
from stronger Christians to their weaker brethren; which is but the
great law of love (treated of in the thirteenth chapter) in one
particular form.
Him that is weak in the faith rather, in faith; that is, not him
that is weak in the truth believed [Calvin, Beza, Alford, etc.],
but (as most interpreters agree), him whose faith wants that
firmness and breadth which would raise him above small scruples.
(See on Rom_14:22, Rom_14:23).
receive ye to cordial Christian fellowship.
but not to doubtful disputations rather, perhaps, not to the
deciding of doubts, or scruples; that is, not for the purpose of
arguing him out of them: which indeed usually does the reverse;
whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and cordial
interchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way of
drawing them off. Two examples of such scruples are here specified,
touching Jewish meats and days. The strong, it will be observed,
are those who knew these to be abolished under the Gospel; the weak
are those who had scruples on this point.
CALVIN, 1.Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a
precept especially necessary for the
sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are
some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with
great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at
length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this
happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of
both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed
to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from
childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were
others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to
which they had not been accustomed. (413)
Now, as man disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion
to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how they who thus
vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and
he prescribes this as the best mode, that they who are strong
should spend their labor in assisting the weak, and that they who
have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant.
For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow
strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it the part of
Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise
others. The import then of what he addresses to the more
intelligent and the already CONFIRMED , is this, that the ampler
the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound
they were to help their neighbors.
Not for the debatings of questions. (414) This is a defective
sentence, as the word which is necessary to complete the sense is
wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing else
than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes.
But we must remember the subject he now handles: for as many of the
Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that
this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a
time excused; for to
-
press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith.
(415)
He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind
not yet sufficiently established, or which involve it in doubts. It
may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any
thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without
any edification, may be disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to
consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate
our teaching to the capacity of individuals.
(413) Some, as [Haldane ], have found fault with this
classification, as there is nothing in the chapter which
countenances it. But as the Apostle object throughout the epistle
was to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles, there is reason sufficient
to regard them as the two parties here intended: and, as [Chalmers
] justly observes, it is more probable that the Gentiles were the
despisers, inasmuch as the Jews, who, like Paul, had got over their
prejudices, were no doubt disposed to sympathize with their
brethren, who were still held fast by them. Ed.
(414) Non ad disceptationes quaestionum , non ad altercationes
disceptationum not for the altercations of disputings or debatings,
[Beza ]; to debates about matter in doubt, [Doddridge ]; in order
to the strifes of disputations, [Macknight ]. Both words are in the
plural NUMBER ; therefore to give the first the sense of as [Hodge
] does, cannot be right;
is untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see
Luk_24:38, and 1Ti_2:8. according to the frequent import of the
preposition the sentence may be thus paraphrased, who is weak in
the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts, or, in
reasonings, or, in disputations. Ed.
(415) [Scott ] remarks on this verse are striking and
appropriate, he says, authority vested by Christ in his Apostles,
and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind,
differences of opinion prevailed even among real Christians; nor
did St. Paul, by an express decision and command, attempt to put a
final termination to them. A proposition indeed may be certain and
important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due
preparation of mind and heart; so that a compelled assent to any
doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without
conviction, would in general be hypocrisy, and entirely UNAVAILING
. So essential are the rights and existence of private judgment, in
all possible cases, to the exercise of true religion! and so
useless an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding
controversies, and producing unanimity among Christians!
THOMAS SMITH ow to consider what Paul meant by the term weak in
Romans
14. He had in mind those Christians whose consciences are
disturbed by the
practices of other Christians in areas to do with the literal
obedience of the
ceremonial part of the Old Testament law. The weak, felt that
they could not, with
a clear conscience, give up the observance of such ritual
requirements as the
distinction between clean and unclean foods and the keeping of
special days.
i. This is why it appears that the division between the weak and
the
strong was also, to a large extent, one between Jewish and
Gentile
Christians. (This agrees well with the use of 'ritually unclean'
in 14.14
and of 'clean' in 14.20. Possibly some Christians in a pagan
city, wishing
to be sure of avoiding meat which may have been unclean
according to
-
the Old Testament ritual law, decided to simply abstain
altogether from
meat.)
Gary Vanderet
Before we come to the text, it is important to understand what
Paul means by these
terms. When he uses the word "weak," he is not referring to
someone with a weak
character, one who gives in easily to temptation. He is speaking
of one who is
"weak" in faith, whose faith doesn't permit him to do certain
things. This person
does not lack self-control; what he lacks is freedom.
This is the principle of unconditional acceptance, especially of
the "weak in faith."
That word "accept" means more than a mere acknowledgment of
their right to
belong. John Stott comments: "It implies the warmth and kindness
of love."[2] The
word is used elsewhere in the ew Testament of Philemon giving
Onesimus the
same welcome that he would give an apostle. It is also used of
the welcome that
believers will receive from Jesus when we are ushered into his
presence in heaven
(John 14:3). The "weak" are not to be rejected, ignored or
treated as second class
believers. Paul adds, "but not for the purpose of passing
judgment on his opinions."
We don't accept one who is "weak" in order to debate or argue
with him. Our
acceptance and welcome come without ulterior motives or hidden
agendas. We are
to respect the opinions of others.
i. That word translated "opinions" in the ASB, or
"disputable
matters" in the IV, deals with areas that Christians do not have
to agree
about. The sixteenth century Reformers called these "matters
of
indifference." In matters where Scripture is unequivocally clear
and
absolute, where truth is stated in such a way that is
unmistakable, it is
sinful for us to debate those issues.
Paul is saying that Christians will differ on these issues, but
that shouldn't make any
difference with respect to how we treat one another. We should
accept one another,
but not for the purpose of sinful debate. David Roper puts it
this way: "Don't accept
your brother into the fellowship and then invite him over to
your house to
straighten him out. That seems to be the Christian's favorite
indoor sport --
straightening out other Christians. There is really only one
person in the world we
can do very much about. Where the Spirit of God has been
ambiguous, we must not
be definitive. Where God has been clear, we can be clear. Where
God has
commanded a truth, we can believe it with assurance. But where
Scripture is not
clear, we must not be dogmatic."[4] That doesn't mean we can't
have personal
convictions about these issues. Paul says that each person
should be convinced in his
or her own mind. But we have to accept one another.
Disputable matters is the issue here and not issues where there
is no dispute.
obody says breaking the ten commandments is okey sometimes and
should not be
judged. Christians have an obligation to judge what is clearly
out of Gods will.
In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives the following instruction for
dealing with the sin of
a brother in Christ. First you must go to him and tell him his
sin. If he doesn't listen
to you, you're to take witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them,
you're to tell the whole
-
church. If he doesn't listen to the church, the church is to
consider him as an
unbeliever. That passage is necessary because sin has such a
crippling effect on the
body of believers.
In 2 Thessalonians Paul says to "withdraw yourselves from every
brother that
walketh disorderly" (3:6f).
JOH MACARTHUR
Within the church are people at all different levels of life,
both physically and
spiritually--young people to old people. Some people have been
saved fifty years;
others have come to know Christ within the last forty-eight
hours. Some come from
irreligious, atheistic, or humanistic backgrounds; others come
from devout Roman
Catholic families. Some used to be Mormons or Jehovah's
Witnesses. Some come
from legalistic fundamentalist churches, and others come from
loose, free-wheeling
churches.
Such diversity is a good thing, but it tends to bring about
clashes. The church is not
only made up of Christians at every level of maturity, but we
all have one thing in
common as well: although we have been redeemed, we are hindered
by our flesh
(Rom. 6-7). (evertheless, according to Romans 8, victory is ours
through the Holy
Spirit.) It is as important to deal with the conflict of diverse
people, all with
unredeemed flesh, as it is to deal with overt sin. Some have
said to me, "Why don't
the ladies wear hats?" They are concerned because they came from
a background
where the ladies wore hats. Others have asked me, "Why don't you
have any
candles?" It is difficult for them to worship without candles
because that has been
their lifetime of experience. Some have been offended by certain
hairstyles because
some churches judge a person's spirituality by the length of his
hair. Some are
offended by certain styles of music. Some don't have a problem
with drinking while
others view it as a vile sin. There are some who wouldn't miss
the latest movie while
others wouldn't darken the door of a theater for fear that God
would strike them
dead, like Ananias and Sapphira, at the box office!
(a) The strong
Liberated brothers and sisters in Christ fully understand what
it means to be free in
Christ-- they don't cling to meaningless traditions and forms of
religion. They
understand fully that they are free from sin, death, hell, and
Satan. They
understand they are not obligated to follow holy days and
ceremonies. They know
they are free to make choices dependent on how the Spirit of God
moves in their
hearts. Such people are strong in the faith.
(b) The weak
These individuals continue to hang onto the rituals and
ceremonies of their past,
refusing to let go. They don't believe they have freedom in
Christ to do otherwise.
Such freedom threatens them, so they prefer remain as they
are.
(a) The contempt of the strong
-
The strong are tempted to look down on the weak as legalistic,
faithless people who
get in the way of those who are trying to enjoy their liberty.
They resent the weak
for labeling their rightful freedoms in Christ as sin.
(b) The condemnation of the weak
The weak tend to condemn the strong for what they see as an
abuse of liberty.
The conflict in the church at Rome was between the legalistic
believer who saw
liberty as sinful and the liberated believer who saw legalism as
sinful. Paul gave four
principles to deal with that conflict: receive one another with
understanding (Rom.
14:1- 12), build up one another without offending (14:13-23),
please one another as
Christ did (15:1-7), and rejoice with one another in God's plan
(15:8-13).
As recipients of the blessings of the ew Covenant, we are free
to enjoy all that God
has provided without any restrictions in terms of non-moral
issues. But certain
people attempt to convince us that we're not free to eat or
drink certain things.
Others tell us our recreation is limited. Some tell us we cannot
watch television or
movies. Others tell us cigarettes or playing cards are in
themselves evil. Some tell us
that a man should not let his hair grow over his ears or wear a
beard. Yet others tell
us that not wearing a beard is unspiritual. All those things
have nothing to do with
what Scripture clearly delineates as sin. They are
neutral--neither right or wrong
according to Scripture--and are the elements of Christian
liberty.
The two issues that Paul deals with here are diet and days of
worship. Diet
cannot be wrong whatever you eat for as Paul says in 1 Timothy
4:4, "For
everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if
it is received
with thanksgiving." . Paul says in Romans 14:14, "As one who is
in the Lord
Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself."
Sometimes we
say this is so good it must be sinful, but it is not. The only
way it can be sinful
to eat any particular food in and of itself is when you offend
another by doing
so. It is not the food that is the problem, but your
insensitivity.
Remember that man covers women as well. It is a generic word for
mankind. Paul
knew women could have opposite opinions also, and so he is not
suggesting that only
men can have differences, with some being weak and others strong
in faith.
The one who is weak in faith is one who has not so grasped the
new faith in Christ
that he has risen above having distinctions concerning meats and
days. obody
gives up a religious conviction easy. A Jew who has held certain
ideas all of his life
is not going to find it easy to forsake them when he becomes a
Christian. Many
Jews who became Christians brought with them old ideas from
Judaism, and this
made them quite legalistic. The strong in faith are those who
put away dependence
upon the law and lean wholly on the grace of Jesus for their
assurance. All of us are
weak to some degree, in some area, even if not in the issues
involved here.
-
To Him our weakness clings
Through tribulation sore;
We seek the comfort of His wings
'Till all be o'er.
The one weak in faith has not grasped fully what justification
by faith is all about.
A person can be a Christians and have wrong ideas about
salvation. They still trust
Christ, but have old ideas of salvation by works still in their
minds. They are still
saved and are to be welcomed. obody who loves and trusts Jesus
is to be rejected,
even if they have some strange or false ideas. We have no right
to demand of others
what God does not demand for fellowship with Himself. He has
masses of His
children who have ideas that are far from what they ought to be.
That is what
Christian growth is all about. You have to start somewhere, and
many of the early
Christians started as Jews who lived all their life under the
law. Paul is defending
the rights of the minority to full fellowship in the church. The
weak are not strong
enough to push their way in. They need acceptance to feel
welcome.
Calvin writes, "They who have made the most progress in
Christian doctrine
should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ
their own
strength to sustain their weakness, for among the people of God
there are some
weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great
tenderness and
kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated
from religion." All
Christians are strong or weak at different times and on
different issues, and all at
some point will have scruples.
Paul is not suggesting a Welcome Week, but he is saying we must
always be ready
to Welcome the Weak. It is essential that the stronger
Christians welcome the
weaker Christians, for that is there only hope of becoming
stronger. We are not to
become like the Pharisees and look down our noses at those who
have not come to
all the same conclusions that we have. Pride is not to be a part
of Christian
fellowship. We are not to let differences break the unity that
we have in Christ.
The strong who cannot welcome the weak are really weaker than
the weak.
The weak in faith are not the same as the wrong in faith. If a
person is teaching
something contrary to the teaching of Christ he is not to be
welcomed-2John 9-10.
We are to pass judgment upon views that
contradict the Bible (Titus 1:9-11; 2 Tim. 4:2; 2:18; 1 Tim.
6:3-4;
1:3; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:12; Romans
3:8).
But if, as some say, this chapter includes doctrinal error,
then they must accept the following conclusions: a. Every
brother
engaged in sin and error is to be accepted. b. Sin and error
is
a matter of personal opinion. Hence no absolute right and
wrong.
c. We cannot preach against anything, except intolerance.
Christians who strive for exclusiveness are not filled with the
mind or spirit of
-
Christ. ewell rebukes certain groups and writes, "Unless a man
pronounces
"shibboleth" their way, there is not the thought of receiving
him. This is the
Phariseeism of the last days. And sad to say it is most found
among those most
enlightened in the truth, for "knowledge puffeth up, but love
buildeth up." Where
faith in Christ in the least degree is found, we should be
thankfully delighted, and
should welcome such believers."
Parker in the People's Bible writes, "He never told the weak man
a lie.
Steadily and frankly he persevered in telling the weak man that
he was weak,
and that if anything was done on his account, it was done simply
because a
good many things are done for the sake of the baby of the
household. But
because all these concessions are made to him he does not cease
to be a baby."
The weak are weak in-
1.Faith-see 14:22-23 HAST THOU FAITH? HAVE IT TO THYSELF
BEFORE
GOD.
HAPPY IS HE THAT CODEMETH OT HIMSELF I THAT THIG
WHICH HE ALLOWETH. AD HE THAT DOUBTETH IS DAMED IF HE
EAT, BECAUSE HE EATETH OT OF FAITH:
FOR WHATSOEVER IS OT OF FAITH IS SI.
2. Knowledge-(1 COR 8:7) HOWBEIT THERE IS OT I EVERY MA THAT
KOWLEDGE: FOR SOME WITH COSCIECE OF THE IDOL UTO THIS
HOUR EAT IT AS A THIG OFFERED
UTO A IDOL; AD THEIR COSCIECE BEIG WEAK IS DEFILED.
3. Conscience-His conscience is overly sensitive, condemning him
for things
Scripture
does not. (1 Cor. 8:7; 10, 12).
4. will-He is weak in his will because he can be influenced to
do something
contrary to his con-science, or to act without becoming fully
convinced
by Scripture that something is either right or wrong.
In this case, the weaker person acts on the example of the
stronger
believer without biblical conviction and faith.
This violates his conscience, and so causes him to sin against
the
Lord (1 Cor. 8:10).
. Michael P. Andrus First Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis
County, Missouri
writes,
Those that are "weak in the faith"
Look again at verses 1 & 2: "Accept him whose faith is weak,
without passing
judgment on disputable matters. {2} One man's faith allows him
to eat
everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only
vegetables." This
speaks of one whose "faith is weak," but the original Greek
actually speaks of
one who is "weak in the faith." This man is having a doctrinal
and theological
problem--he hasnt yet come to grips that with the fact that at
the death of
Christ the believer was released from bondage to the Mosaic Law.
Hes weak
-
in that his conscience still bothers him when he eats meat or
fails to observe the
Sabbath or drinks certain beverages, etc. Hes weak in that he is
still in slavery
to the shadows and hasnt experienced the glorious freedom which
comes
through Jesus Christ. Hes weak in that he hasnt yet fully
liberated himself
from a belief in the efficacy of works. He still thinks more of
what he can do
for God than of what God has done for him. His general approach
is, "If the
Bible hasnt specifically approved something, then its probably
wrong."
Thats the weak brother.
DAVID HOKE, People struggle with different things. What is taboo
and what is
not? Since becoming a Christian, I have heard of people who
thought it sin for men
to have hair past their ears, long sideburns or beards. Some
think that women who
wear slacks are wrong for doing so. Similarly, some think that
women who wear
makeup are modern-day Jezebels identifying with the world. I
heard a pastor tell of
a lady who came up to him after a service and asked him whether
it was a sin to
wear makeup. She looked kind of white and chalky, like a reject
from a Geritol
commercial. He said that he took one long look at her and said,
"Go get some." In
her case, she had been taught that there was something sinful
about wearing
makeup.
Those that are "strong in the faith"
On the other hand, there is the strong brother. His general
approach is different: "If
the Bible hasnt specifically forbidden something, then its
probably within my
rights to do it." He enjoys his freedom in Christ and doesnt
find his conscience
inhibiting him in regard to many of the (quote) "things that
dont matter." He
knows experientially what John 8:31,32 means, as Jesus says, "If
you hold to my
teaching, you really are my disciples. Then you will know the
truth and the truth
will set you free." Thats the strong brother.
The curious thing here, and I want you to catch this, is that
these labels have
largely been reversed in the conservative church today. The
legalistic believer
who has a list of don'ts a mile long; who has appointed himself
as the spiritual
watchdog of the church; who is the first to throw up his hands
in holy terror if
he sees a fellow-believer smoking or drinking a beer; who
automatically writes
someone off from leadership in the church if he or she has
suffered a divorce,
no matter what the cause, actually considers himself the strong
brother.
If we dont accomplish anything else this morning I hope we at
least come to
realize that the one whose list of scruples and inhibitions is
long and rigid is the
weak brother, while the one who refuses to add to the Ts list of
dos and
don'ts is the strong brother.
If I may chase down a philosophical rabbit trail for a moment, I
believe that a very
interesting thing has developed in the evangelical church over
the past several
decades, and that is that quite a number of Christians tend to
make the automatic
assumption that the conservative position is always the right
position and the more
liberal position is always the wrong position. And they tend to
forget that we
evangelicals are supposed to get our viewpoints out of the
Bible, and it shouldnt
matter whether it seems liberal or conservative by popular
evangelical standards.
-
"Let me use another example. About a year ago there was an older
woman
attending our church for a few months whose name I never
learned, but she had a
penchant for the KJV. One day she called me up to find out why I
didnt preach
from the KJV. I told her it was because I didnt think it was as
accurate a
translation as the IV or the ASB. Suddenly I got an earful about
how the KJV is
the inspired Word of God and all these new-fangled Bibles are
tools of Satan, and it
went down hill from there. Well, her position is certainly
conservative, but its
terribly weak with the facts. I have a great appreciation for
the beauty of the KJV,
but when history and grammar and textual criticism are taken
into consideration,
there is simply no way the KJV can be held up as a superior
translation. It simply
isnt so.
Friends, the only really strong position is the one that
corresponds to truth, and I
for one am willing to stand on Gods Word even if it means that
the whole of
fundamentalism and half of evangelicalism think Im a "liberal,"
or even if the
other half of evangelicals and all the liberals think Im a
"knee-jerk conservative."
ot for dispute over opinions. There is good reason for disputes
when the
issue is a matter of clear revelation and essential doctrine.
But when it comes to
opinions it is folly to dispute. Is Bach better than Beethoven?
This is a matter
of personal taste and has no place in Christian debate. Do not
welcome the
weak brother or sister because you know they have weak ideas and
you look
forward to the fun of tearing them to shreds and to torment them
with your
liberty in Christ. The more mature Christian can be a real
stinker in teasing
another Christian who is hung up on old ideas he was taught by
some legalistic
group he grew up in.
writes, "The weak brother in the early church was the one who
had been
regenerated by God's Spirit, but who had not as yet been freed
from his
superstitions,
prejudices, theories, and legality." There are many Christians
today who still have
the prejudices they grew up with, and have hangups of all kinds
that come with
them into the church. We are not to despise them for these
weaknesses, but accept
them as God does. God loves us all just as we are, but too much
to leave us there.
That is to be our attitude as well.
Disputable matters are inevitable in any group, for we are a
diverse people by
design, and not all made alike. All it takes is one person in a
group to cause
disunity for unity calls for one hundred percent cooperation and
agreement,
but only one can create disunity, and so disunity is more likely
than unity in
any body of people.
HOKE, But by referring to some as weak, he is not putting them
down. Some are
weak simply because they have not yet had the time and
experience to mature. To be
weak is only embarrassing when you should be strong. We dont
expect little babies
in the crib to be strong, but we do expect full-grown men to be
strong, at least by
comparison to the little babe. Consequently, it is important for
us to understand
-
that we are not all at the same level of maturity.
Unfortunately, because we are not
all the same, this creates problems in our life together.
STEDMA
To accept him, of course, means that regardless of where you may
struggle with
someone and about what you may struggle, you must realize that
they are brothers
and sisters in the family of God, if they are Christians at all.
You did not make them
part of the family -- the Lord did. Therefore, you are to accept
them because they
are your brothers and sisters. And you are not to accept them
with the idea of
immediately straightening them out in the areas in which they
are weak. I think that
is a very necessary, practical admonition because many of us
love to argue and
sometimes the first thing we want to do is straighten somebody
out.
I remember years ago when, after preaching from this platform on
a Sunday night,
a man came up to me and started talking in a rather roundabout
way. He said, "Let
me ask you something. Do you believe that two Christians who
love the Lord and
are led by the Holy Spirit will read a passage of Scripture and
both come out
believing the same thing?" I said, "Yes, I think that sounds
logical." "Well," he
said, "can you explain why, when I read the passage you preached
on tonight, I
believe it teaches there will be no millennium, but when you
read it, you believe
there is going to be one. What do you think of that?" Being
young and aggressive I
said, "Well, I think it means that I believe the Bible and you
do not." That
immediately precipitated an argument and, with several other
people gathered
around, we went at it hammer and tongs for an hour or so.
Afterwards, thinking it
through, I realized how wrong I was. I had immediately started
arguing. I had to
write to that brother and tell him that I was sorry I had jumped
on him like that. Of
course, he had jumped on me, too, but that was his problem, not
mine. I had to
straighten out my problem, so I apologized to him and said, "I
am sorry that I did
not recognize the parts where we agree before we got on to those
things over which
we differ."
Paul wants us to understand that this is what we are to do.
First of all, accept
people, let them know that you see them as a brother or a
sister. Establish the
boundaries of your relationship by some gesture or word of
acceptance so they do
not feel that you are attacking them immediately. The Greek here
says not to accept
them in order to argue about your differences, or, as the ew
English Bible puts it,
"without attempting to settle doubtful points." First, let there
be a basic recognition
that you belong to one another.
It is also clear that he calls the "liberal party" strong in the
faith, while the "narrow
party" is regarded as being weak in the faith.
Therefore, the mark of understanding truth is freedom; it is
liberty. That is why
Paul calls the person who understands truth clearly one who is
strong in the faith,
while those who do not understand it clearly are weak in the
faith. They do not
understand the delivering character of truth. I think William
Barclay in his
-
commentary on Romans has handled this well. He says:
Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:
(i) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom;
he is at heart still
a legalist; he sees Christianity as a thing of rules and
regulations. His whole aim is to
govern his life by a series of laws and observances; he is
indeed frightened of
Christian freedom and Christian liberty.
(ii) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the
efficacy of works. In his
heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain
things and
abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to
earn a right relationship
with God, and has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still
thinking of what he
can do for God more than of what God has done for him.
That is the problem here. It is the problem of a Christian who
is not yet
understanding fully the freedom that Christ has brought him, who
struggles with
these kinds of things, and who feels limited in his ability to
indulge or to use some of
these things -- while others feel free to do so. One is strong
in the faith; the other is
called weak in the faith. Every church has these groups.
We are not to exclude these people from our contacts with one
another. We must not
form little cliques within the church that shut out people from
social fellowship with
people who have different viewpoints. We must not think of our
group as being set
free while this group over here is very narrow and we have
nothing to do with them.
This is wrong, and Paul clearly says so. In fact, he implies
that if any of the so-called
strong exclude weaker brothers, look down on them, treat them as
though they are
second-class Christians, they have simply proved that they are
just as weak in the
faith as the ones they have denied. Strength in the faith means
more than
understanding truth. It means living in a loving way with those
who are weak: The
truly strong in the faith will never put down those who are
still struggling.
BARES
There were many Jews in Rome; and it is probable that no small
part of the
church was composed of them. The ew 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
Act_15:1-2, etc.;
Gal_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. 34. 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;
Rom_14:2.
(2) the distinctions and observances of the days of Jewish
fastings, etc.,
Rom_14:5-6.
-
(3) the laws observed by the Jews in relation to animals as
clean or unclean;
Rom_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 apostles 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; Rom_14:3-4.
(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;
Rom_14:6, etc.
(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; Rom_14:10-13.
(4) that there is really nothing unclean of itself;
Rom_14:14.
(5) that religion consisted in more important matters than such
questions;
Rom_14:17-18.
(6) that we should follow after the things of peace, etc.;
Rom_14:19-23.
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.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, Him that is weak in the faith receive, but
not to doubtful disputations.
Strong and weak
Here is a lesson
I. For those who are strong in the faith.
1. Not to provoke.
2. Nor despise those who are weak.
II. For those who are weak. Not to judge their stronger
brethren.
III. For both.
1. To think and let think.
2. To give each other credit for sincerity. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
The weak in the faith to be received, or the duty of mutual
forbearance
1. Faith is not here used in the sense of confidence in Christ,
but of the faith. The question was, did Christianity or did it not
require abstinence from certain meats, and observance of certain
fasts and festivals? The man who maintained that it did is here
held to be weak in the faith. He had but faintly grasped the
breadth of Christs
-
redeeming work; while he who had attained superior light, and
had been set free from all such scruples, was therefore strong in
the faith.
2. Now, the apostle assumes that the latter was right. Had he
been wrong, there could have been no discussion, and there could be
no just ground for a moments toleration of him. But he was not
wrong (Rom_14:14). The Mosaic law on these subjects had been done
away in Christ (Col_2:16-17).
3. The question was whether the man who conscientiously
abstained and observed might, or might not, be received into the
Church. He was certainly not required in order to salvation to
disregard the Jewish festivals, nor to eat unclean meats. But it
never could be tolerated that he should set up his scrupulous
conscience as the normal standard of Christian faith (Gal_2:3-5;
Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:1-4). No one must bind burdens upon men which the
Lord had not bound. Hence the weak in faith is to be received, but
not to judgings or condemnations of opinions. If he is content to
enjoy the advantages of fellowship with you, without insisting that
you are all wrong, let him be received; but if his object is to
promote contention, etc., then he has no rightful place amongst
you.
I. Let not the strong in the faith despise them that are weak,
for their convictions rest ultimately upon Divine revelation. The
law of Moses was of Divine authority, and, although done away in
Christ, was subject to it. Therefore it was not surprising if some
of the Jewish converts still felt insuperable objections to its
abandonment. It was a matter of conscience, and the man who
respects his conscience deserves respect, even when prejudiced and
wrong (Rom_14:6). The strong, therefore, must not put a
stumbling-block in their brothers way. This may be done
1. By a contempt of his scruples. The disposition to sneer at
his stupid weakness will not convince him that he is either stupid
or weak, but will rather drive him utterly away from those who
tolerate such an ungenerous spirit, and perhaps to apostasy. Now,
though the strong had a perfect right to disregard the distinctions
of meats, he had no right to imperil the salvation of any one for
whom Christ died (Rom_14:17). The weak are not required to abstain
from meats, but you are not bound to eat them (1Co_8:13).
2. By example or persuasion. It was quite lawful for the strong
to employ argument in order to convince the weak that he
misapprehended the character and purpose of Christianity: but it
was not lawful for him to laugh at his scruples, and to assure him,
without adducing proof, that there could really be no harm in
eating, etc. That might be quite true for him, but it would not be
true for his weak brother. If this man presumed to eat the meat, or
to disregard the day, while his scruples remained, his own
conscience would accuse him of unfaithfulness. Thank God for thy
liberty (Rom_14:22); but use it lawfully (Gal_5:13; 1Pe_2:16;
1Co_8:9).
II. The weak in the faith are not to judge or condemn the strong
in the faith, the thing to which they are always predisposed.
Incapable of grasping comprehensive principles, that, e.g., of
Christian love, they feel to require a multitude of minute
prescriptions. Days and meats and dress must all be fixed by
enactment. And so being most punctiliously conscientious
themselves, are ready to condemn brethren who are not equally
scrupulous. Admit them into the Church by all means, says the
apostle; but they must lay aside this censorious spirit. For it is
not suffered them to usurp the place of the great Supreme. These
matters are in themselves morally indifferent (Rom_14:14; 1Ti_4:4).
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act upon his
own convictions. Your judgment is not binding upon any conscience
but your own. As to all other matters there
-
must be mutual forbearance and charity. Yet it is for each one
to see
1. That he is loyally and earnestly devoted to the service of
his Lord. Whether strong or weak his object must be to approve
himself unto the Lord in everything, and for the Lords sake to
promote the comfort and perfection of all his brethren.
2. That conscience is not offended. Happy is he that condemneth
not himself in that which he alloweth in his own practice. Where
there is doubt, respect that doubt. Seek that your conscience may
be well informed. (W. Tyson.)
The treatment of the weak
Weak Christians have infirmities, but infirmity supposes life;
and we must not despise them in heart, word, or carriage. We must
rather deny ourselves than offend them. We must support thembear
them as pillars bear the house, as the shoulders the burden, as the
wall the vine, as parents their children, as the oak the ivy; and
this because
1. They are brethren. Are they not of the same body? Shall the
hand cut off the little finger because it is not as large as the
thumb? Do men throw away their corn because it comes into the barn
with chaff?
II. They are weak. Bear with them out of pity. In a family, if
one of the little ones be sick, all the larger children are ready
to attend it, which they need not do if it were well.
III. Christ does so. Bear ye one anothers burdens, and so fulfil
the law of Christthe law of
1. His command.
2. His example. He takes special care of the lambs, will not
quench the smoking flax, and is touched with a feeling of our
infirmities. (Philip Henry.)
The duty of forbearance in matters of opinion
Differences of opinion
I. Must necessarily arise even among Christians, out of
1. Human ignorance.
2. The different constitution of the mind.
II. In trivial matters indicate weakness of faith in those who
are rigidly scrupulous. They do not understand the spirituality and
liberty of the gospel.
III. Should be maintained in the spirit of love.
1. The strong may not despise the weak.
2. The weak and scrupulous may not judge the strong.
IV. Are of infinitely less importance than Christian
brotherhood. He whom God has received must be
1. Respected.
2. Treated as a brother beloved. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
-
Religious toleration
The argument for this is founded on
I. The nature and condition of man. He is imperfect, and
therefore should also be tolerant. There is nothing more universal
than ignorance, and hence there should be no virtue more universal
than toleration. The facility with which we all absorb error and
fall into prejudices, should make us always ready to tolerate many
shades of religious opinion. It is folly to demand a unity of
belief in a world where there is no one wise but God, and no one
good except God. Some of the best men have been the victims of
great errors. All intolerance is based upon egotism. It proceeds
from the assumption that you have reached the ideal. The dreadful
Popish persecutions all originated in a human egotism that cried, I
have found it! They had become the exponents of God. Whereas now
history shows that in all cases the persons exiled or put to death
held a better creed at the time than those who forced upon them the
bitter fate.
II. In the fact that the ideas over which most blood has been
shed have subsequently been proven either useless or false. But one
might have premised that the most intolerance would always be found
gathered about the least valuable doctrine, because the most
valuable doctrines are always so evident that no thumb-screw or
faggot is ever needed to make the lips whisper assent. No man has
ever been put to death for heresy regarding the Sermon on the
Mount. But when a church comes along with its legitimacy, its Five
Points, its Prayer Book, or its Infant Baptism, then comes the
demand for the rack and the stake to make up in terrorism what is
wanting in evidence. When witnesses were wanting, the high priests
rent their clothes. If God has so fashioned the human mind that all
its myriad forms can agree upon doctrines that are most vital; and
if, as a fact, persecution has always attached itself to the small,
then we would seem to have the curse of God visibly revealed
against intolerance. (D. Swing.)
Toleration
A Quaker, after listening to Whitefields preaching, came up to
him and said, Friend George, I am as thou art. I am for bringing
all to the life and power of the everlasting God; and therefore if
thou wilt not quarrel with me about my hat, I will not quarrel with
thee about thy gown. (J. R. Andrews.)
Toleration: its value
Sailer, afterwards Bishop of Regensburg, could be identified
with no party, and was hated by each. Napoleon prevented his
promotion at one time by assuring the king he was a mere hanger-on
to the Roman court; the Pope refused it at another because he
suspected his attachment to the Church He was one of the mildest
and most tolerant of menmild to excess. It is told that having
preached one morning near Salzburg, the parish clergyman rose up
and said he would preach himself in the afternoon, as Sailer had
made the doors of heaven too wide. You are excellent at bandages,
said one of his friends, but a bad operator. Very possibly, he
replied; in my life I have seen more wounds healed by a good
bandage than by a knife. (Dr. Stephenson.)
-
Unity to be maintained in spite of differences of opinion
I. How it is imperilled.
1. By forcing our own opinions on others.
2. By overestimating our own practice.
II. How it may be promoted.
1. By forbearance (Rom_14:3).
2. By humility (Rom_14:4).
3. By aiming at personal conviction (Rom_14:5).
4. By keeping in view the glory of God (Rom_14:6).
III. Whereon it rests.
1. The common assurance that we serve one Lord.
2. That we are all redeemed by Him.
IV. What it requires.
1. That we avoid all unbrotherly conduct.
2. That we all submit to God.
3. That we remember our final account. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Religious disputations
This chapter is written to dissuade men from acting the part of
religious critics. It cannot be said that men are indifferent to
religion in other folks. It is only to religion in themselves that
they are comparatively indifferent. Men are so accustomed to
criticise each others church service, etc., that they lose the very
spirit of religion. The apostle dissuades everybody from it. A
little spring comes out from the side of a mountain, pure and cool.
Two men are determined that that spring shall be kept perfectly
pure and drinkable. One wants it to be done in one way, and the
other in another way; and they are so zealous to keep the spring
pure that they get to quarrelling about it, and tramp through it,
and make it muddy. They defile it in their very zeal to keep it
pure; and the water flows down turbid and unfit to drink. Now, men
are so determined to glorify God that they act like the devil. They
are so determined that charity shall prevail that they slay men.
They are so determined that a kind spirit shall exist that they
will not have a word to say to a man who does not believe in their
catechism. They are so determined that the world shall be generous
that they stir up all manner of corrupting appetites and passions.
They condemn their fellow-men, saying, Well, they are not orthodox.
They are not true believers. They do not belong to the true Church.
There are no covenants for them. So, under one pretence and
another, the great Christian brotherhood, through the ages past,
has been turmoiled and distracted; and the world has seen the
spectacle of anything but what God meant to establish in the world.
The Church by which He meant to make known His manifold wisdom, has
made manifest narrowness, sectarianism, selfishness, unjust
partialities, and all manner of irritable jealousies. It has not
made manifest the beauty of God, the sweetness of Christ Jesus, nor
the love of the Spirit. It is a fact which I think can be stated
without fear of contradiction, that the general aspect of religion,
as presented by churches throughout Christendom, is not winning
and
-
attractive, and that the beauty of holiness, of which the
Scriptures speak, has not yet blossomed out in the world. (H. W.
Beecher.)
Practical godliness better rectifies the judgment than doubtful
disputations
1. The weak one is
(1) Not one that is weak and sick to death, erring in the
foundation of faithone who doth not hold the Head (Col_2:19), who
denieth the Lord that bought him (2Pe_2:1; 2Jn_1:10).
(2) Nor one who is sick about questions (1Ti_1:4; 1Ti 5:13;
2Ti_2:13).
(3) But one who, though he hath embraced the Saviour, yet is not
of a mature judgment, clear enough about the abolition of
ceremonial observations, things [which] he judgeth ought to be
forborne or done.
2. Charity is enjoined towards such. Take them to you, receive
them into your houses (Rom_12:13; Luk_5:29). When they fly for
their religion and lives, supply their wants, though not just of
your opinion. Do not force them to practise what they cannot freely
do, but receive them into your arms, love and converse, that you
may instruct them and win them into your communion. Let not little
differences cause the greatest distances (Rom_14:3).
3. The limitation of this exception. Not to doubtful
disputations.
I. Disputations are not easily judged of by such as are weak in
faith. This is evident from the first dispute that ever was in the
world.
1. By this first dispute with the serpent, our first parents
were foiled when in uprightness and strength of the image of God.
But now sinful man is in a much more dark and doleful state.
For
(1) He cannot form an idea of anything as it is in itself
(1Co_8:2; 2Co_3:5).
(2) His judgment, therefore, must needs be dubious or wrong
whereby he is to compare things that differ or agree (Hos_9:7;
Isa_5:20; Heb_5:14).
(3) His conclusions, therefore, must needs be distorted from
these premisses; and the errors in the first and second concoction
are not corrected and amended by the third. He who cannot make one
straight step, can never take three together.
2. As we are lame in our feet by our naturals, so even those who
by the light of the gospel and grace are brought over to better
understanding, yet by virtue of the old craziness they are not
thoroughly illuminated and refined. The very apostles themselves
were plainly told by our Saviour of His sufferings and
resurrection, yet they understood none of these things
(Luk_18:33-34; Luk_24:45). Paul says, We know but in part
(1Co_13:12). We see but one side of the globe. These weak Jews were
zealous for their ceremonies; the Gentiles, as hot for theirs; let
no man think himself infallible, for these were all mistaken.
3. Nothing so convulseth mens reason as interest.
II. The practice of holy duties is the ready way to have our
minds enlightened in the knowledge of principles. These practical
duties
1. Give light (Joh_3:21). The very entrance into the command
giveth light
-
(Psa_119:130); the door is a window to him that hath a weak
sight.
2. Advance light. Every step a man takes he goeth into a new
horizon, and gets a further prospect into truth.
3. Keep from error or help out of it. Communion with the saints,
e.g., as in a team if one horse lash out of the way, if the others
hold their course, they will draw the former to the right path. If
any man will do this will of God, he shall know of the doctrine
(Psa_35:14).
III. Christian charity and reception will sooner win weak ones
to the truth than rigid arguments.
1. Opposition breeds oppositions. When men dispute, they jostle
for the way, and so one or both must needs leave the path of truth
and peace. The saw of contention reciprocated, with its keen teeth
eateth up both truth and love; for such contentions are rather for
victory than truth.
2. Loving converse taketh off those prejudices which hinder mens
minds from a true knowledge of others principles and practices.
3. Sincere love and converse breed a good opinion of persons who
differ from us. They can taste humility, meekness, and kindness,
better than the more speculative principles of religion. (T.
Woodcock, A.M.)
Unwise disputations
Such facts remind us of an incident that occurred on the
south-eastern coast. A noble ship with its crew and passengers was
in awful peril, having struck on a sunken rock. Having been
observed by those on shore, the lifeboat was ran down to the beach.
Everything was in readiness when a most unseemly quarrel arose.
There were two rival crews, each of which claimed the right to man
the boat, and to receive any remuneration that might be earned by
pulling out to the wreck. Neither crew would give way to the other,
and so the boat was not launched, and while those men were
wrangling with each other the ship and all on board her went under
the raging billows. That was a sad scene. But in the eyes of Heaven
it must be a still sadder spectacle to see the Church wasting her
time and energies in disputing about points of doctrine and
discipline, and yet leaving vast multitudes of men to perish in
their sin and misery and despair. (Christian Journal.)
Christian forbearance
Let each receive every other in his individuality, and that not
to doubtful disputations. We are not to attempt to shape men to
that which we think they ought to be in a hard and systematic
manner. In churches we see exhibited certain styles of character.
The lines have been laid down with accuracy. The members are to
believe such and such things, and they are to observe such and such
bounds and theological lines, or else they are like a plant that is
in a pot that is too small for its roots, and they are dwarfs all
the rest of their lives. There are a few Christians (I would to God
there were more) in whom the kingdom of God is like an oak or cedar
of Lebanon; but there are many who are called Christians in whom
the kingdom of God is no bigger than a thimble. There are men who
have a few catechetical ideas, who are orthodox, and who make no
mistakes in
-
theology; but woe be to the man who does not make any mistakes.
Count the sands of the sea, if you can, without misreckoning. A man
that has a hundred ducats or dollars may count them and make no
mistake; but multiply them by millions, and then can he count them
without any mistake? I am sorry for a man who does not make
mistakes. If you have a huge bucket, and a pint of water in it, you
will never make the mistake of spilling the water; but if a man is
carrying a huge bucket full of water he will be certain to spill
it. (H. W. Beecher.)
Disputations to be avoided
John Wesley, a man whose bitterest enemy could not fairly accuse
him of indifference to the doctrines and faith once delivered to
the saints, wrote thus liberally and large-heartedly to a
correspondent: Men may die without any opinions, and yet be carried
into Abrahams bosom; but if we be without love, what will knowledge
avail? I will not quarrel with you about opinions. Only see that
your heart be right toward God, and that you know and love the Lord
Jesus Christ, and love your neighbours, and walk as your Master
walked, and I ask no more. I am sick of opinions. Give me a good
and substantial religion, a humble, gentle love of God and man.
Christian contention
God grant that we may contend with other churches, as the vine
with the olive, which of us shall bear the best fruit; but not, as
the brier with the thistle, which of us will be most unprofitable!
(Lord Bacon.)
Contagious contention
As a little spark many times setteth a whole house on fire; even
so a contentious and froward person, of a little matter of nought,
maketh much debate and division among lovers and friends. As we see
one coal kindle another, and wood to be apt matter to make a fire;
so those that are disposed to contention and brawling are apt to
kindle strife. (Cawdray.)
Test of controversy
A cobbler at Leyden, who used to attend the public disputations
held at the academy, was once asked if he understood Latin. No,
replied the mechanic; but I know who is wrong in the argument. How?
replied his friend. Why, by seeing who is angry first.
Christian liberty:In such points as may be held diversely by
diverse persons, I would not take any mans liberty from him; and I
humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me. (Abp.
Bramhall.)
EBC, CHRISTIAN DUTY: MUTUAL TENDERNESS AND TOLERANCE: THE
SACREDNESS OF EXAMPLE
BUT him who is weak-we might almost render, him who suffers from
weakness, in his
faith (in the sense here not of creed, a meaning of rare in St.
Paul, but of reliance
-
on his Lord; reliance not only for justification but, in this
case, for holy liberty), welcome
into fellowship-not for criticisms of his scruples, of his , the
anxious internal debates of conscience. One man believes, has
faith, issuing in a conviction of liberty, in such a mode and
degree as to eat all kinds of food; but the man in weakness eats
vegetables only; an extreme case, but doubtless not uncommon, where
a convert, tired out by his own scruples between food and food, cut
the knot by rejecting flesh meat altogether. The eater-let him not
despise the non-eater; while the non-eater-let him not judge the
eater: for our God welcomed him to fellowship, when he came to the
feet of His Son for acceptance. You-who are you, thus judging
Anothers domestic? To his own Lord, his own Master. he stands, in
approval, -or, if that must be, falls under displeasure; but he
shall be upheld in approval; for able is that Lord to set him so,
to bid him "stand," under His sanctioning smile. One man
distinguishes day above day; while another distinguishes every day;
a phrase paradoxical but intelligible; it describes the thought of
the man who, less anxious than his neighbour about stated "holy
days," still aims not to "level down" but to "level up" his use of
time; to count every day "holy," equally dedicated to the will and
work of God. Let each be quite assured in his own mind; using the
thinking power given him by his Master, let him reverently work the
question out, and then live up to his ascertained convictions,
while (this is intimated by the emphatic "his own mind") he
respects the convictions of his neighbour. The man who "minds" the
day, the "holy day" in question, in any given instance, to the Lord
he "minds" it; (and the man who "minds" not the day, to the Lord he
does not "mind" it); both parties, as Christians, in their
convictions and their practice, stand related and responsible,
directly and primarily to the Lord; that fact must always govern
and qualify their mutual judgments. And the eater, the man who
takes food indifferently without scruple, to the Lord he eats, for
he gives thanks at his meal to God; and the non-eater, to the Lord
he does not eat the scrupled food, and gives thanks to God for that
of which his conscience allows him to partake.
The connection of the paragraph just traversed with what went
before it is suggestive and instructive. There is a close
connection between the two; it is marked expressly by the
"but" () of ver. 1 (Rom_14:1), a link strangely missed in the
Authorised Version. The "but" indicates a difference of thought,
however slight, between the two passages. And the differenced as we
read it, is this. The close of the thirteenth chapter has gone all
in the direction of Christian wakefulness, decision, and the
battlefield of conquering faith. The Roman convert, roused by its
trumpet strain, will be eager to be up and doing, against the enemy
and for his Lord, armed from head to foot with Christ. He will bend
his whole purpose upon a life of open and active holiness. He will
be filled with a new sense at once of the seriousness and of the
liberty of the Gospel. But then some "weak brother" will cross his
path. It will be some recent convert, perhaps from Judaism itself,
perhaps an ex-pagan, but influenced by the Jewish ideas so
prevalent at the time in many Roman circles. This Christian, not
untrustful, at least in theory, of the Lord alone for pardon and
acceptance, is, however, quite full of scruples which, to the man
fully "armed with Christ," may seem, and do seem, lamentably
morbid, really serious mistakes and hindrances. The "weak brother"
Spends much time in studying the traditional rules of fast and
feast, and the code of permitted food. He is sure that the God who
has accepted him will hide His face from him if he lets the new
moon pass like a common day; or if the Sabbath is not kept by the
rule, not of Scripture, but of the Rabbis. Every social meal gives
him painful and frequent occasion for troubling himself, and
others; he takes refuge perhaps in an anxious vegetarianism, in
despair of otherwise keeping undefiled. And inevitably such
scruples do not terminate in themselves. They infect the mans whole
tone of thinking and action. He questions and discusses everything,
with himself,
-
if not with others. He is on the way to let his view of
acceptance in Christ grow fainter and more confused. He walks, he
lives; but he moves like a man chained, and in a prison.
Such a case as this would be a sore temptation to the "strong"
Christian. He would be greatly inclined, of himself, first to make
a vigorous protest, and then, if the difficulty proved obstinate,
to think hard thoughts of his narrow-minded friend; to doubt his
right to the Christian name at all; to reproach him, or (worst of
all) to satirise him. Meanwhile the "weak" Christian would have his
harsh thoughts too. He would not, by any means for certain, show as
much meekness as "weakness." He would let his neighbour see, in one
way or other, that he thought him little better than a worldling,
who made Christ an excuse for personal self-indulgence.
How does the Apostle meet the trying case, which must have
crossed his own path so often, and sometimes in the form of a
bitter opposition from those who were "suffering from weakness in
their faith"? It is quite plain that his own convictions lay with
"the strong," so far as principle was concerned. He "knew that
nothing was unclean" (Rom_14:14). He knew that the Lord was not
grieved, but pleased, by the temperate and thankful use, untroubled
by morbid fears, of His natural bounties. He knew that the Jewish
festival system had found its goal and end in the perpetual "let us
keep the feast" (1Co_5:3) of the true believers happy and hallowed
life. And accordingly he does, in
passing, rebuke "the weak" for their harsh criticisms () of "the
strong." But then, he throws all the more weight, the main weight,
on his rebukes and warnings to "the strong." Their principle might
be right on this great detail. But this left untouched the yet more
stringent overruling principle, to "walk in love"; to take part
against themselves; to live in this matter, as in everything else,
for others. They were not to be at all ashamed of their special
principles. But they were to be deeply ashamed of one hours
unloving conduct. They were to be quietly convinced, in respect of
private judgment. They were to be more than tolerant-they were to
be loving-in respect of common life in the Lord.
Their "strength" in Christ was never to be ungentle; never to be
"used like a giants." It was to be shown, first and most, by
patience. It was to take the form of the calm, strong readiness to
understand anothers point of view. It was to appear as reverence
for anothers conscience, even when the conscience went astray for
want of better light.
Let us take this apostolic principle out into modern religious
life. There are times when we shall be specially bound to put it
carefully in relation to other principles, of course. When St.
Paul, some months earlier, wrote to Galatia, and had to deal with
an error which darkened the whole truth of the sinners way to God
as it lies straight through Christ, he did not say, "Let every man
be quite assured in his own mind." He said (Rom_1:8) "If an angel
from heaven preach any other Gospel, which is not another, let him
be anathema." The question there was, Is Christ all, or is He not?
Is faith all, or is it not, for our laying hold of Him? Even in
Galatia, he warned the converts of the miserable and fatal mistake
of "biting and devouring one another". (Gal_5:15) But he adjured
them not to wreck their peace with God upon a fundamental error.
Here, at Rome, the question was different; it was secondary. It
concerned certain details of Christian practice. Was an outworn and
exaggerated ceremonialism a part of the will of God, in the
justified believers life? It was not so, as a fact. Yet it was a
matter on which the Lord, by His Apostle, rather counselled than
commanded. It was not of the foundation. And the always overruling
law for the discussion was-the tolerance born of love. Let us in
our day remember this, whether our inmost sympathies are with "the
strong" or with "the weak." In Jesus Christ, it is possible to
realise the ideal of this paragraph even in our divided
Christendom. It is possible to be convinced, yet sympathetic. It is
possible to see the Lord for ourselves with glorious clearness, yet
to understand the practical difficulties felt by
-
others, and to love, and to respect, where there are even great
divergences. No man works more for a final spiritual consensus than
he who, in Christ, so lives.
Incidentally meantime, the Apostle, in this passage which so
curbs "the strong," lets fall maxims which forever protect all that
is good and true in that well-worn and often misused phrase, "the
right of private judgment." No spiritual despot, no claimant to be
the autocratic director of a conscience, could have written those
words, "Let every man be quite certain in his own mind"; "Who art
thou that judgest Anothers domestic?" Such sentences assert not the
right so much as the duty, for the individual Christian, of a
reverent "thinking for himself." They maintain a true and noble
individualism. And there is a special need just now in the Church
to remember, in its place, the value of Christian individualism.
The idea of the community, the society, is just now so vastly
prevalent (doubtless not without the providence of God) in human
life, and also in the Church, that an assertion of the individual,
which was once disproportionate, is now often necessary, lest the
social idea in its turn should be exaggerated into a dangerous
mistake. Coherence, mutuality, the truth of the Body and the
Members; all this, in its place, is not only important, but divine.
The individual must inevitably lose where individualism is his
whole idea. But it is ill for the community, above all for the
Church, where in the total the individual tends really to be merged
and lost. Alas for the Church where the Church tries to take the
individuals place in the knowledge of God, in the love of Christ,
in the power of the Spirit. The religious Community must indeed
inevitably lose where religious communism is its whole idea. It can
be perfectly strong only where individual consciences are tender
and enlightened; where individual souls personally know God in
Christ; where individual wills are ready, if the Lord call, to
stand alone for known truth even against the religious Society; -if
there also the individualism is not self-will, but Christian
personal responsibility; if the man "thinks for himself" on his
knees; if he reverences the individualism of others, and the
relations of each to all.
The individualism of Rom_14:1-23, asserted in an argument full
of the deepest secrets of cohesion, is the holy and healthful thing
it is because it is Christian. It is developed not by the assertion
of self, but by individual communion with Christ.
Now he goes on to further and still fuller statements in the
same direction.
For none of us to himself lives, and none of us to himself dies.
How, and wherefore? Is it merely that "we" live lives always,
necessarily related to one another? He has this in his heart
indeed. But he reaches it through the greater, deeper, antecedent
truth of our relation to the Lord. The Christian is related to his
brother Christian through Christ, not to Christ through his
brother, or through the common Organism in which the brethren are
"each others limbs." "To the Lord," with absolute directness, with
a perfect and wonderful immediateness, each individual Christian is
first related. His life and his death are "to others," but through
him. The Masters claim is eternally first; for it is based direct
upon the redeeming work in which He bought us for Himself.
For whether we live, to the Lord we live; and whether we be
dead, to the Lord we are dead; in the state of the departed, as
before, "relation stands." Alike, therefore, whether we be dead, or
whether we live, the Lords we are; His property, bound first and in
everything to His possession. For to this end Christ both died and
lived again, that He might become Lord of us both dead and
living.
Here is the profound truth seen already in earlier passages in
the Epistle. We have had it reasoned out, above all in the sixth
chapter, in its revelation of the way of Holiness, that our only
possible right relations with the Lord are clasped and governed by
the fact that to Him we rightly and everlastingly belong. There,
however, the thought was more of our
-
surrender under his rights. Here it is of the mighty antecedent
fact, under which our most absolute surrender is nothing more than
the recognition of His indefeasible claim. What the Apostle says
here, in this wonderful p