Before reading any more of this post, I highly encourage you to read Romans chapter 14.
Romans 14 is a fascinating passage that teaches us many wonderful truths. It also makes us a bit uncomfortable. For example, Paul writes in 14:5, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." On the surface that may sound a little postmodern. Is Paul suggesting that truth is relative? Of course not. However, Paul does appear to be telling the Roman church and the rest of us that some things in life do in fact come down to conscience.
Two issues we must deal with related to Romans 14 are how to correctly understand it and how to accurately apply it. Specifically as it relates to church practices, I've heard Romans 14 used again and again to support various traditions, programs, activities, etc. that have little to no scriptural support. The argument goes something like this, "I'm convinced in my mind that what we are doing (whatever it is) honors God. Romans 14 tells others not to judge us. Therefore, we are going to continue to do it." Romans 14 is often used as a sort of "trump card" to end discussions about church issues. When some Christians are unable to provide biblical evidence for why they do what they do, they pull out Romans 14 to both win and end the discussion.
Is this what Paul intended when he wrote to the Roman church? What is the context of the chapter and the book? Do these matter? What does Paul actually say? What does he not say?
How far can we apply Romans 14, especially as it has to do with how we understand the church? If Romans 14 has extremely broad application, then basically anything is justifiable as long as it is not prohibited by scripture. However, if Paul's intention is much narrower, then the Romans 14 trump card falls apart. The key for us is that we understand as best we can what Paul actually meant.
Because of its significance for church life, I'm going to blog three more times about this chapter: the context, what Paul says and doesn't say, and the application. My hope is that you partake in the discussion as well.
How we handle Romans 14 has direct impact on our understanding of Christ's church.
21 comments:
Eric,
For the believers in Rome at the time when Paul wrote to them, there is an interesting phenomenon going on with this passage. The believers who argue that Saturday is more special than other days and that only certain foods/beverages should be eaten/drunk had more scriptural support for their arguments. However, it seems in this passage (and others), Paul calls these believers the "weak" brothers and sisters while those who disagreed were the "strong."
-Alan
Eric,
One more thing. When reading and considering Romans 14, I think it's necessary to continue reading through Romans 15:13.
-Alan
Alan,
Thanks for the comments. You say that some had more scriptural support. Isn't this particular scriptural support part of the OT law that Paul tells us elsewhere we are free from? It seems like poor understanding of freedom in Christ on their part. I suppose this is one of the reasons they are referred to as "weak."
Thanks for the tip on continuing to Romans 15:13. I'll do that.
Eric,
Yes, it was the OT Scriptures that I was referring to. But, that's the only Scriptures that they had. Any discussion on our part that the "strong" or "weak" in Paul's examples in relation to scriptural evidence, must take into account that they would have only had the OT Scriptures. For example, you said, "When some Christians are unable to provide biblical evidence for why they do what they do, they pull out Romans 14..." What would that have looked like in Rome among the people that Paul was writing to?
-Alan
I'm looking forward to reading your blogs about this chapter. We are in the process of studying through Romans, and have been discussing Chapter 14 for the past several weeks. Someone asked the following question, "Why didn't Paul tell the weaker brethren to grow up, and not worry about what others were doing?" As someone who doesn't necessarily like being controlled by others, I also wondered exactly how far we take the "not offending the weaker Christian" requirement. Happy Thanksgiving!!
Alan,
I'm sure it was a challenging situation for the early Christians. In some ways we have a better situation than they did. We have the full NT to inform our decision making (along with the OT). The writers of the NT, especially Paul, tell us much about how to understand and apply the OT law today. Our understanding of our relationship to the law will directly impact how we understand this chapter. That all said, we need to keep in mind the Roman church's situation, but also understand that we have to apply what we have today - meaning the full NT.
Vinny,
Thanks for commenting. I look forward to your input. This chapter certainly is an important one and potentially explosive one. I'm hoping that through discussion we can better comprehend and apply what Paul is writing. That sounds like a cliche, but I mean it.
In applying the "full N.T.", I wonder how you will handle Luke 16:16.
BiloxiRoy,
Thanks for the comment. Are you from MS?
When I used the term "full NT," I was specifically referring to passages from books like Galatians that show us that we are free from the OT law. This doesn't mean we are free from the OT, for there is much in the OT that is not law. Jesus came to fulfill the law because we couldn't. Paul exhorts us to fulfill the law of Christ. The law still applies to all who are not in Christ. They are judged guilty by it. As for Romans 14, a question we must ask is how we relate to the OT law. If we must follow it, then the Romans 14 passage makes no sense - all would have to follow the eating and drinking requirements.
What do you think about the Luke 16 passage?
Eric,
I'm from Detroit. I've been in MS off & on since 1958 and full time since 2001.
As I understand it, the "Law" is the term used for the 1st 5 books and the "Prophets" is the term for the rest of the books in the Jewish Scriptures. I think that when we read that "the Law and the prophets were until John", it means exactly that. It goes on to say that "since that time the kingdom of God is preached" and that's what Jesus preached.
BilxiRoy,
Thanks for commenting. I agree that the law usually refers to the first five books of the bible. There are also specific laws within the greater law; Leviticus for example has hundreds of these. Jesus came to fulfill the law because we couldn't. I agree completely that he preached the kingdom.
How does your comment relate to Romans 14 and its application?
This is a test, i've been having trouble posting a comment. Preview seems to work, now to try publish.
BiloxiRoy,
I'm sorry about the comment problems. I think this new Blogger template is the real issue. Later today, time willing, I'm going to revert back to the old one. I've had fewer comments recently, probably because it is so difficult to leave comments with this new design.
Eric, you asked... "How does your comment relate to Romans 14 and its application?" In your Nov 23rd follow-on comments, you said that "If we must follow it (the Law), then the Romans 14 passage makes no sense". I wonder why you used the word "IF". My comment cites Jesus as the authority that ended the requirement to follow the Law. We might say that "Since we don't have to follow the Law, how do we make sense out of Romans 14?" The answer to this is that you err/fall short/sin when you do things that conflict with what you believe. To illustrate, my wife's grandmother was French and I expect that she started life as a Catholic. Some time after that she became a Baptist. But she maintained the practice of eating fish on Friday. This practice reflected a belief that she continued to hold.
Roy,
I'm glad that we agree that we don't have to follow the law. We are free in Christ! Praise the Lord.
As for Romans 14, I believe the key to the passage is thinking of others in love before self. We have liberty from the law, but we should not pursue this to the harm of weaker brethren.
It's not apparent to me how the pursuit of liberty harms the weaker brethren. Could you give an illustration of this? It seems that Paul's advice is to conform to the weaker person's belief.
Roy,
Paul's use of the concept of weaker and stronger tells us, I believe, that the stronger position is better. This refers to those who embrace freedom from the law.
However, he also wants us to be sensitive to those who still continue to follow certain aspects of it.
For example, if I have a Jewish Christian friend who thinks it is wrong to eat pork, I'm not going to at a ham sandwich around him at a restaurant.
On this issue, Paul's concern for love of others seems to supersede our right to exercise our freedom. When we are not with those of weaker conscience, we can exercise it all we want.
This sounds like Paul want's us to be camelions. If we're on a blue surface, we turn blue. If we're on a red surface, we turn red. Changing to match our surroundings sounds deceitful and if we're on a plaid surface we're really in trouble. Wouldn't we be better served to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 7:12..... Do unto others as you would have them do to you? Couldn't I ask..... I know that some of the brethren abstain from eating ham. Would you be offended if I had a ham sandwich? If I was with three brethern and I knew that one would be offended if any in the group ordered a ham sandwich, but I don't know about the other two. Asking would let everyone know of the potential offence.
Roy,
Jesus and Paul are in agreement. They simply and profoundly want us to look out for the good of others before thinking of ourselves.
Hi Eric,
In your Dec 16th comment, you said that "Jesus and Paul are in agreement". Therefore, if I'm in agreement with Jesus I'll also be in agreement with Paul. This will be true even if I don't know how to "correctly apply" Romans 14. Then if Paul simply wants us to "look out for the good of others before thinking of ourselves", why did it have to get so lengthy and complicated?
Roy,
Paul certainly does spend quite a few words on the issue. My guess is that he was greatly concerned about the danger of division within the church. I imagine that the possibility of a Jew-Gentile divide was very real. Paul wanted to squash the potential problem so he went into a lot of detail to address all aspects of what was going on.
Post a Comment