Chapter 14
Vss 1-4 are about NOT judging each other over what we eat...within the church. So though we are to judge others in the church for sin, we are not to proscribe every little part of their life by our own rules. There are only certain "infractions" that are to be judged. How do we know what those are, and know what is NOT included?
MSB notes are helpful, but not definitive. Romans is written to the Jewish Christians in Rome. But there were Gentiles in that church, and there were synagogues in Rome. In those synagogues, the Jews still held strictly to the dietary requirements of the Mosaic Law. It was from this background of strict adherence to the law that the Jewish Christians came. The Gentiles in this same church had come from worshiping idols. The meat sacrificed to idols was then sold in meat markets for cheap rates - easily affordable meat. New, or immature Jewish believers were not yet confident enough in the freedom of the New Covenant to just "discard" a lifetime of training in what to eat. It still seemed wrong to them to eat some things. Likewise, the Gentiles did not want to "be part of" the idol to which the meat was sacrificed - as Paul describes in Corinthians. They did not yet have the freedom of conscience to realize that idols were just wood and stone. They had vestiges of believing that these idols had power, and that eating meat sacrificed to them was to acknowledge their power - and to support their temples monetarily. Paul makes it clear that these things - violating the dietary laws and eating sacrificed meat - are not sins. God has released Israel from the old Law, as we see with Peter's vision of the unclean beasts - we know that nothing is unclean any more. However, trying to teach these young believers to disregard what their conscience is telling them about these things promotes a dangerous precedent. Ignoring conscience will quickly get you into trouble. So Paul says the mature believers are to "honor" the consciences of the immature in matters like this. I am sure the idea is to continue teaching them so that as mature Christians, they too realize the freedom they have in Christ. Be patient and loving, teaching them what they need to know, not pushing them too quickly, letting God work in them to sanctify them.
These actual verses:
2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. [Rom 14:2-3 ESV] I note that this seems to imply that some were vegetarian for religious reasons. If it is just a matter of preference and not conscience, then it isn't what we are talking about.
2025 - Oh my....Halloween, and those at church who have no problem with it. Do the mature Christians have a problem with Halloween, or only the newer, less mature? Or is celebrating Halloween just plain wrong scripturally? I guess the criteria is whether you do Halloween to honor God or not? No, that doesn't fly because if it is sin to start with, even mature Christians still sin if they indulge in it.
I don't think it is sin to trick or treat or to dress in costumes on Halloween. I think it IS a sin to honor ghosts, goblins, and demons and witches via Halloween. I don't think kids should dress up as demons or axe murderers. Dress as heroes, princesses', Winnie the Pooh. Plague doctors is a good one!
There is a line beyond which we ought not go, because it is sin. Because it celebrates, elevates, tolerates things that are abomination to God. That is not ok. But dressing up as Superman? There's no sin there.
Wow...looked at this way, even I could dress up for Halloween!
Later - unless Christians even less mature than I am were present. Then I could not.
I rebel at women wearing provocative clothing to church. Dresses too short, pants too tight. Is this immature of me? Well it is certainly not that these women think wearing non-provocative clothing is a sin and so should be "allowed" to do something that is unnecessary, such that asking them to let the hem down would be to violate their conscience toward God. I might be immature not to like it, but this passage does not prohibit me from discouraging it. It does not weaken their faith surely.
Raising of hands, musical instruments....Is that about maturity? Or just about tradition? I don't think either one is in the law. The law didn't say play music so when it went away it became ok not to play music. The Law required neither that we raise hands in praise or that we not. Some Psalms talk about it but not as "commands" from God. But these are somewhat different, somewhat "Gentile". We grow comfortable with what we grow up with. For me to raise my hands during singing would feel awkward to me. I don't feel awkward for other people when they do it though. Musical instruments don't bother me at all - they are within my "tradition of acceptance". But not having one doesn't feel "wrong" to me. It feels wrong if you think having an instrument is a sin. They think it is a sin to play music, though there is nothing in the Law or in the NT that proscribes it. This is about tradition.
And tradition has its place, but tradition NEVER gets to over ride scripture. There are a LOT of things scripture does not mention that we still do, and with which we have no problem. Why is music bad? Because in the early church, I think we have evidence that they didn't play music. Augustine addresses this as a controversy in his own time - whether to play music or not.
So the "test", first and foremost, is whether the command for a certain behavior is in the Law which is now moot, is elsewhere in scripture - especially in the NT, or whether it is based solely on tradition. If the first or the third, we need to be mature about it. If the second, we need to follow the teaching of the apostles.
This verse also:
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4 ESV] The Master is God. If we judge another church member, we are judging God's servant for Him. That would put us in way over our heads. In matters like this. We are still to judge matters of sin...maybe that's the way to put all this. We are to judge sin but not conscience. If you think homosexuals should get married, it does not matter how strongly your conscience tells you this is right, because it is against the teaching of scripture, and is still sin, and that sort of thing we ARE to judge. But Saturday church vs Sunday church? There is no scripture. Piano vs a cappella? No commandment.
2025 - But the responsibility is on the mature! Those who realized that idols were just wood and meat sacrificed to them meant nothing were to abstain if it would bother the conscience of newer members. It was their responsibility to not bruise the sensibilities of the new members with their freedom. Why? Because the Holy Spirit informs us of sin...once we learn how to listen. Until then, it is our own conscience that informs. To ignore the latter teaches us to ignore the former also, and we never learn. We have much freedom in Christ but the line is still very fine. We need to learn as we go to recognize the line through the Holy Spirit, not through the freedom of other Christians.
2025 - Look at that last part. HE WILL E UPHELD for the Lord is able to make him stand! Does this not say that even if we get it wrong, we will not be kicked out of heaven over it??? Unintentional, immature, unrecognized sin, at any stage of Christian maturity, will not kick you out of heaven...but we will be judged for our unknowing error. Goes right along with that last phrase in vs 3.
Paul next adds the "chosen day of worship" to eating. As long as you worship when you do to honor God, you are fine to do that. Tuesday's are ok if that's what your conscience tells you to do.
2022 - I was drawn this year to vs 4:
4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. [Rom 14:4 ESV]. I thought it would be a good post. If a woman is wearing her dress shorter than you think is ok, who are you to judge the servant of another. That's where I thought I was going. But that is not the right way to look at it. The Bible does speak out against immodest dress. The Bible prohibits judging those without, but we will judge angels so surely we can judge each other. So here is the key to this problem, and it is something I considered after Sunday School last week. If you see someone who's dress is just plain too short - and this happens pretty much every Sunday - your first thought shouldn't be "what a slut". First question should be "Is she a Christian?" I think that before you start criticizing other people AT CHURCH you need to know who you're talking about. If that person is unsaved, you may NOT judge them. If you tell a stranger her dress is too short, and she's unsaved and searching, you will likely drive her away from salvation forever, and that soul is and ought to be charged to your ignorance. You really want someone to go to hell because they didn't realize their dress was too short for church? You cannot treat such people as evil sluts trying their best to introduce impure thoughts at church. Not unless you know them, and you know what kind of person they are. What you ought to do instead is befriend them, find out about them, pray for them unceasingly, and witness to them. Set an example that they will WANT TO EMULATE, don't correct them in a way that runs them off. I believe there is a line. I believe there is clothing - or lack of it - that should not be tolerated. But it is not up to the rank and file to decide where that is. That is a preacher and deacon decision. And even there, we need to know to whom we are talking.
2022 - In this verse, Paul is clearly talking to Christians about Christians. He is talking about those who "abstain" or "refrain" because of conscience, he is not talking about Christians who are practicing works righteousness. Thinking that abstaining from meat offered to idols will count towards your points to get into heaven is clearly wrong and if that is the reason, it needs to be addressed. But if it is a matter of conscience, that should be left alone. For me, to drink is sin. But for the visitor from Germany, beer is ubiquitous. It is water to them. They should not criticize me, nor I them.
2022 - Vs 6:
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. [Rom 14:6 ESV]. It is not possible for me to drink to honor the Lord. Drinking for me always compromises. I don't believe it is sin for most people. But for me, for right now, it is. For me, God is not honored by my drinking. That is how I'm put together, and it ought not be criticized. But that is a two way street!
Vss 10-12....We shall all stand before the judgement seat....Only a few days ago I decided that the saved will not have their sins read out, and have to answer for them. Only the lost will suffer this humiliation and public failure. So what do I do with this passage? Here, as in 1 Cor 3:13-15, believers will answer for the decisions they made - whether they were the best, or whether they were half-hearted. Whether we "took up the cross" or shirked our testimony. We will be judged like those servants given some to invest. How did we do with the treasure we were given? The judging will be about our reward, because our eternity is already determined. Did we spend our time on things of eternal value or on things of only worldly value. MSB says we will not be judged for sin, because the consequences for that were paid in the past.
2022 - ho bema ho Theos. This verse is part of the same passage. There's been no re-direction to the lost. The saved will stand before God. It is possible that Paul is using Theos and Christos interchangeably here. Basis for that is the quote, which ties so very well to every knee bowing to Jesus. But that quote is also from Isaiah, and was clearly, at THAT time, about the Father. And vs 12 sort of hammers it home. An account of himself to God. I believe the bema judgment will occur immediately post-rapture, and that God will be on the throne and Jesus will be our advocate. We will all bow to Theos at that judgment. Only Christians will be there. I think 12 makes it clear that this is a judgment where God pronounces judgment. I think it will go along the lines of "You did all this, committed all these sins", and Jesus will say "I have already served the sentence for those sins", and God will say "Innocent, come on in!".
So, WHO IS ADDRESSED IN 2COR 5:10, where it talks about ho bema ho Christos?
Here is that verse:
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. [2Co 5:10 ESV]. I put this as the pre-millennial judgment, by Christ, of those living at that time. Some go into the Millennial with Christ, the rest are sent on to hell. I think this is the sheep and goat - it is the same judgment as the pre-millennial. Those who were "Christian" during tgt come on in, those who were not, go on to hell. And it is Christ who is on this throne, thus, ho bema ho christos.
[Mat 25:31 ESV] "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[Mat 25:32 ESV] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
[Mat 25:33 ESV] And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
MSB says this is the pre-Millennial judgment, not the Great White Throne. That is, MSB makes the sheep and goat judgment and the pre-Millennial judgment one and the same. How is this time set? We need to look at any references to Jesus coming in glory, and we need to see when exactly he comes with his angels. We need verses for that to nail down this judgment as pre-Millennial. That is one task.
Moving on through the MSB note to Mat 25:31, it says those subject to this judgment seem to be only those who are alive at his coming. These, then, would be the survivors of Great Tribulation. All alive, and only the living judged. Divided into sheep and goats. What happens to the sheep?
[Mat 25:34 ESV] Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
They take their places in the Millennial kingdom. There is every implication that they will have responsibilities there.
What happens to the goats?
[Mat 25:41 ESV] "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
[Mat 25:46 ESV] And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
This verse concludes it:
13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. [Rom 14:13 ESV]
The judgement referred to is whether these things done in the flesh - evaluated by the one who is master of us all and not by each other - were done to honor God or not. If not, they are not rewarded. If so, then they are, and only God will judge which was the case. So we do not judge on matters of tradition or that are not spoken to in Scripture apart from the Law.
2022 - How can you argue with this verse?:
14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. [Rom 14:14 ESV]. There is NOTHING unclean. It is about how we think about what we are doing. And we need to be very careful before condemning anyone else for what THEY are doing, since we cannot know how they are thinking about it!
If we do things that make other believers feel bad for us, if we grieve them by our actions, then we should adjust our actions according to those who witness them. So mature Jewish Christians could have dinner together and eat ham. If the whole Sunday school class was there, including some very new converts from Judaism, then serve chicken instead. Consider who will be there! Our freedom in Christ should never "keep new believers at a distance". Our actions should never make them doubt their commitment. Most of all, our behavior should never ever be to indulge in sin because we won't go to hell for it.
It seems that in this chapter, Paul is talking about day to day matters - and indeed he is - in a general way. He hasn't received a report that the Romans are having troubles with these matters, BUT, he is seeing the kind of trouble that can arise from them there in the church at Corinth. It is the Corinthian problems that he is instructing Rome about so that they don't fall into the same problems. That's what "franchises" do. What one franchise encounters is bumped up as instruction for all.
14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. [Rom 14:14 ESV] This verse seems to make sin a "relative" idea. Seems to say that the more mature you are the more you can do and it won't be sin. But this isn't what it is about. Sin is sin is sin, past, present and future. This is about our conscience making things into sin when they are really not. There is NO implication here that if you are a mature enough Christian, adultery is no longer a sin. In Corinth, they were looking at it that way...or at least saying that sins of the body did not affect the spirit at all. The bottom line was the same. They were committing sins and calling it ok. Paul, I think, knows that the Holy Spirit works in and through our conscience to keep us from sin, and he is saying that we ought not oppose the conscience that warns others of their sin. Leave it to the Holy Spirit to give them freedom when they are mature enough for freedom - when tradition or history carry less weight with them than the Word. But don't "mess around" with de-sensitizing someone else's conscience.
I note that in vs 21 "drink wine" is one of those things we ought not do if there are those present who cannot in good conscience participate. It is stated as if for a mature Christian, drinking wine with a clear conscience would work. But for me, tradition still reigns, telling me alcohol is sin, so for me to drink - in my immaturity - does not honor God, and so I SHOULD NOT DRINK. Might be different for Lutherans, Germans, etc. with a tradition of alcohol consumption. Their conscience, not mine, and God's eventual judgement, is what matters. And I think that is what is being clearly stated by these verses:
22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. [Rom 14:22-23 ESV]
One last thought on this chapter...this seems to be an open letter to the church at Rome, not a letter intended for the leadership only, or the "mature" only. So the immature Christians will read this and see that if they don't like eating meat sacrificed to idols, that's ok, but when they are more mature they will see it is not a problem. How is putting this in the letter not doing the very same thing that Paul is telling them not to do? He has to assume that all will read the letter. So...his purpose is to prevent division and ill will over these things by helping all to understand the underlying principles. I would think immature Christians, upon reading this, would aspire to grow in truth and spirit - but never ever in violation of what their own conscience tells them. And because mature Christians read and follow these guidelines, the church will be a "safe place" for new Christians. They won't be expected to run a marathon the first day, but will be helped, trained, brought along, in full fellowship and without having their training over done.
2021-2, Is it for us to tell a woman her dress is too short for church? Only God knows if she is doing it to honor him or to honor herself, so only He can judge. Perhaps the right thing is to point out this chapter, and inform her that her clothing choices may be causing problems with others about how far their freedom in Christ lets them go. She may see the dress as fine, but others may see it as sin for them. If, upon having this made clear to her, she continues, then she is revealing not her maturity but her immaturity. But even then...shouldn't mature Christians be above such fleshly temptations?
Next day 2021-2, Perhaps the key is that if mature Christians are wearing their dresses too short and drinking wine with dinner, for them, realizing their freedom and doing what they do in celebration of God, then it is ok, unless it is a stumbling block for me the less mature. But baby Christians are exercising the wrong kind of freedom when they wear those short dresses. They are being Corinthian, not mature. In either case, interestingly, short dresses should not be seen at church.
2022 - How can this question be so hard? I think it is most likely that Paul is not talking here about short dresses, and trying to make this passage apply to short dresses just heaps another layer of confusion on that subject while missing the point of what the passage is really about anyway. This chapter is about what some Christians choose NOT to do, what young Christians choose not to do, and how mature Christians ought to accommodate matters of conscience in new Christians. It also gives some comfort to new Christians who see older Christians doing things that still seem wrong to the new Christians. They ought not worry, necessarily, that the older Christians are not Christians at all, but are exercising their freedom in the New Covenant. But those on both sides of this discussion are pre-supposed to ALL be saved Christian believers.
2025 - I am reminded of what Bonhoeffer says. Stop trying to complicate things into a pass on what you can or cannot do. Read what it says. Interpret it absolutely literally if it can be interpreted that way. Stop trying to assimilate the Word into your understanding, and instead adjust your understanding to the simple truth of the word!