Undoubtedly, the church in Rome was made up of people from a great many cultures and former religions. There were native Romans, and people who had come to Rome from Europe, Asia and Africa. Of course, there were a great many Jews in the church, because they were the first to whom the gospel was presented, and generally speaking they were the best inclined toward the gospel. This multi-cultural background and variegated religious past, especially in the early years of that church, put everyone on uneven ground doctrinally and in practice. Some had been taught to give great respect toward the Word of God, while for others it was brand new. Some had followed priests, while others had followed their own hearts and minds. Some had been terribly wicked people, and others had been Pharisees of the Pharisees. Some were bold in their faith, and others were extremely timid. Some were slaves and some were rich slave owners. Undoubtedly all this confusion put a lot of stress on the unity and cohesion of that congregation.
I wonder how much of this was involved in Paul’s decision to write this epistle in the first place. Of course, it was the will of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit inspired every word of it. But generally speaking there are human factors which direct God’s people into seeing and following the will of the Lord. In addition to concern about a church which may or may not have received lost men into its membership, Paul may have heard about problems which existed between some of the Christians there. The subject of chapter 14 may have been one of the primary reasons for Paul dictating this letter.
We may break apart some of the bigger elements of the chapter later, but I think that first of all it is important that we generally grasp it as a complete unit. Having looked at the problems that some of the saints were causing by their undue rebellion against the government, then perhaps, having heard that some of them were not living as godly as they should, and exhorting them to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul moves on to internal ecclesiastical problems caused to some extent by the cultural differences between the various members.
We are to receive him, “but not to doubtful disputations.” What does this mean? Robertson in his “Word Pictures” says that it means, “not for decisions of opinions,” or not to “discriminations between doubts or hesitations.” Jamison, Fausset and Brown says: “not to the deciding of doubts,” or “scruples.” Gills says that it means: receive him, but not to “vain jangling and perverse disputings.”
Let’s go back to my illustration about the man with the ear ring. I don’t suppose that there is an adult male in this room who thinks that this isn’t quite kosher. Some might argue that ear rings are feminine attire, and for that reason it should be banned. But someone else might point to scriptures which describe men wearing ear rings. It could be said that ear rings are worldly; they are a masculine fad which should never have been born. And most of us might agree, but it would be hard to prove from the scriptures. Besides, if we are going to use that argument against men’s ear rings, maybe we should apply that to women’s ear rings too. I think that many would end up saying that ear rings and excessive jewelry on men just FEELS wrong. In addition to the ear ring, our example is also wearing a gold chain over a t-shirt. Do you also feel that wearing only a t-shirt to the House of God is also inappropriate? I do! I do, but it is a matter of preference, and not something which I find condemned in the Word of God.
Now let’s change the direction of this illustration just a little bit. Our fictitious potential member is adamant that we should all be wearing sandals just as he does. His reason? He is convinced that Jesus wore sandals, and in an effort to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” we should wear sandals as well. He points to the Bible, and to dozens of scholars who say that everyone in Christ’s day wore open toed sandals, tied to the ankles with leather straps. Furthermore, he is convinced from how he understands the Bible that we are to come to church with filthy feet, and before every church service we are supposed to wash each other’s dirty feet. In this point, he thinks that he holds to higher moral ground than you and I do. We may condemn him for his ear ring, but with less scriptural power than his position that we should wear sandals and wash each other’s feet.
How should we treat this professed brother who wears ear rings, t-shirts and sandals to the house of God? This is Albert Barnes’ understanding of verse 1: “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.” 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.”
My favorite commentary on Romans is that Robert Haldane; this is what he says: “The meaning seems to be, that when they should receive a weak brother, they should not press him to receive their views by harassing discussions on the points on which he is ignorant. Such conduct would either tend to wound his mind, or induce him to acquiesce without enlightened conviction. Disputation seldom begets unanimity. If a statement of the will of Christ from the Scriptures has not the effect of producing conviction, lengthened discussions are more likely to increase prejudice than to resolve doubts. To push them forward faster than they are taught by the word and Spirit of God, will stumble and injure instead of making them strong.”
The usually verbose John Gill simply says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations; to vain jangling and perverse disputings, such as will rather perplex than inform them; and will leave their minds doubtful and in suspense, and do them more harm than good.”
Paul of course was not dealing with my fictitious character.
Remember that it was a very diverse group of people who formed that church. There were Heathen who had their calendars filled with all kinds of festivals – not unlike the Catholics. And there were the Jews with their calendars filled with Passovers, Atonement Days, and sabbaths. I can hear them all clamoring to have their most respected day honored by their church. And at the same time they were condemning the special days of the other members. And I can hear yet others saying that one day is not really more important than another – including Easter and Mother’s Day. Other than the Lord’s Day, we don’t see much evidence of the Apostles encouraging the gathering of the saints on one day more than another.
The second point of controversy which Paul raises, is that of eating various foods – particularly meats. “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” In another epistle Paul deals directly with the question about meats which had been sacrificed in public markets and probably dedicated to the local heathen deity in the process. Here he is a little more generic.
Let’s say that our fictitious potential church-member was raised in a staunch Roman Catholic home, and for some reason he believes that it is wrong to eat meat on Fridays. The idea is foolish – mostly because it is unbiblical. But should that man be ostracized because he believes a foolish but probably harmless opinion? And what about the woman who is a vegetarian arguing that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” and therefore eating anything with blood is sin? These people may think that they are standing on the high ground, and we don’t have a leg to stand on in our sinking sand. Who is the weak brother and who is the stronger? Of course whatever position we hold, we are the stronger, or at least we try to think of ourselves that way.
What should we do with the brother who refuses to eat pork, because he believes that the Lord has condemned it? We should praise him for having convictions, and pass him the chicken. No quantity of argument is going to make him change his mind, so don’t destroy your fellowship with him by making it a point of contention. No harm is done, or should be done, if you eat your bacon and he doesn’t. And what about that family which is able to separate the birth of Christ from a moderate, family celebration of Christmas? All the arguments have been spoken and heard. Any further debate will only separate otherwise good brethren. Let’s lovingly recognize that we disagree and move on. This morning I told you about Richard Furman, who pastored a sound, Regular Baptist Church, but who owned slaves and maintained the idea of slavery, arguing the Bible is doing so. Was he wrong in that? I think that he was. Should he have been excommunicated because of his position? Hummmm.
There is a Judge of all such matters, and you are not that judge. So, “who art though that judgest another man’s servant?” “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” I think that each of us have enough to worry about in ourselves and in our own lives and families that we don’t need to worry about what the other fella believes or doesn’t believe, practices or doesn’t. And “none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.”
One of the things that we all need to seriously consider is not hurting another person’s potential growth in the things of the Lord. “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Why should we have this peaceful approach toward people with whom we have these kinds of disagreements? Because in our love and respect for one another we bring glory to God. Again, we are not talking about clearly stated doctrines – like the deity of Christ or salvation by grace. We are talking about Christian practice and semi-private opinions. We need to deal slowly and lovingly with such issues because the prosperity of the Lord’s church is at stake when brethren quarrel with brethren. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”