1
Red Script = Main Point / Blue Script= Directive / Double underline= Important to remember / Boxed= Biblical Text & SDA Commentary Reference / Green Script: A Possible AnswerLesson 13December 23-29/30Christian Living
.Memory Text:“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” (Romans 14:10).
We are now in the last part of our study of Romans, the book from which the Protestant Reformation was born - the book that more than any other should, indeed, show us why we are Protestants and why we must remain that way.As Protestants, and especially as Seventh-day Adventists, we rest on the principle of Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone as the standard of faith. And it is from the Bible that we have learned the same truth that caused our spiritual forefather centuries ago to break from Rome - the great truth of salvation by faith, a truth so powerfully expressed in Paul’s epistles to the Romans.
Perhaps the whole thing can be summarized by the pagan jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30).In Romans, we got the answer to that question - and the answer was not what the church was giving at the time of Luther. Hence, the Reformation began, and here we are today.
In this, the last section, Paul touches on other topics, perhaps not as central to his main theme, yet important enough to be included in the letter. Thus, for us, they are sacred Scripture, as well.How did Paul end this letter, what did he write, and what truths are there for us, the heirs not just of Paul but, indeed, of our Protestant forefathers?
SundayDecember 24Weak in Faith
In Romans 14:1-3, the question concerns the eating of meats that may have been sacrificed to idols.The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) ruled that Gentile converts should refrain from eating such foods.But there was always the question as to whether meats sold in public markets had come from animals sacrificed to idols (see 1 Cor. 10:25). Some Christians didn’t care about that at all; others, if there were the slightest doubt, chose to eat vegetables instead. The issue had nothing to do with the question of vegetarianism and healthful living. Nor is Paul implying in this passage that the distinction between clean and unclean meats has been abolished. This is not the subject under consideration. If the words “he may eat all things” (Rom. 14:2) were taken to mean that now any animal, clean or otherwise, could be eaten, they would be misapplied. Comparison with other New Testament passages would rule against such an application.
Meanwhile, to “receive” one weak in the faith meant to accord him or her full membership and social status.The person was not to be argued with but given the right to his or her opinion.
What principle should we take, then, from Romans 14:1-3?
Romans 14:1-3 (The Law of Liberty) 1Receive one who is weak in the faith,butnot to disputes over doubtful things.2For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eatsonlyvegetables.3Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him.
1. Weak in the faith. That is, one who has but a limited grasp of the principles of righteousness. He is eager to be saved and is willing to do whatever he believes is required of him. But in the immaturity of his Christian experience (see Heb. 5:11 to 6:2), and probably also as the result of former education and belief, he attempts to make his salvation more certain by the observance of certain rules and regulations that are in reality not binding upon him. To him these regulations assume great importance. He regards them as absolutely binding upon him for salvation, and he is distressed and confused when he sees other Christians about him, especially those who seem to be more experienced, who do not share his scruples.
Paul’s statements in Rom. 14 have been variously interpreted, and have been used by some: (1) to disparage a vegetarian diet, (2) to abolish the distinction between clean and unclean meats, and (3) to remove all distinction between days, thus abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath. That Paul is doing none of these three becomes evident when this chapter is studied in the light of certain religious and related problems that troubled some of the 1st-century Christians.
Paul mentions various problems that are an occasion of misunderstanding between brethren: (1) those relating to diet (v. 2), and (2) those relating to the observance of certain days (vs. 5, 6). In 1 Cor. 8 the problem of the strong versus the weak brother, as regards diet, is also dealt with. The letter to the Corinthians was written less than a year before that to the Romans. It seems reasonable to conclude that in 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 Paul is dealing with essentially the same problem. In Corinthians the problem is identified as the propriety of eating foods sacrificed to idols. According to the ancient practice pagan priests carried on an extensive merchandise of the animal sacrifices offered to idols. Paul told the Corinthian believers—converts both from Judaism and from paganism—that inasmuch as an idol was nothing there was no wrong, per se, in eating foods dedicated to it. However, he explains, because of earlier background and training, and differences in spiritual discernment, not all had this “knowledge” and could not with a free conscience eat such foods (see on 1 Cor. 8). Hence Paul urged those without scruples regarding these foods not to place a stumbling block in a brother’s way by indulging in them (Rom. 14:13). His admonition is thus in harmony with the decision of the Jerusalem Council, and doubtless throws light on at least one reason why that council took the stand it did on this subject (see on Acts 15). Probably for fear of offending in this matter some Christians abstained from flesh foods entirely, which means that their food was restricted to “herbs,” that is, vegetables (see Rom. 14:2).
Paul is not speaking of foods hygienically harmful. He is not suggesting that the Christian of strong faith may eat anything, regardless of its effect upon his physical well-being. He has already made plain, in ch. 12:1, that the true believer will see to it that his body is preserved holy and acceptable to God as a living sacrifice. The man of strong faith will regard it as an act of spiritual worship to maintain good health (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 10:31).
A further fact throws light on the problems Paul is discussing. Only dimly, at first, did many Jewish Christians comprehend that the ceremonial law had met its fulfillment in Christ (see on Col. 2:14–16) and was henceforth no longer binding. Indeed, the first Christians were not called upon abruptly to cease attendance at the annual Jewish feasts or to repudiate at once all ceremonial rites. Under the ceremonial law the Jews were to keep seven annual sabbaths. Paul himself attended a number of the feasts after his conversion (Acts 18:21; etc.). Though he taught that circumcision was nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), and agreed to fulfill a vow according to the stipulations of the ancient code (Acts 21:20–27). Under the circumstances it appeared best to allow the various elements of the Jewish ceremonial law gradually to disappear as the mind and conscience became enlightened. Thus, it was inevitable that among Jewish Christians there would arise questions as to the propriety of keeping certain “days”—Jewish holydays, in connection with their annual feasts (see Lev. 23:1–44; see on Col. 2:14–17).
In view of these facts it becomes evident that Paul, in Rom. 14, is not (1) disparaging a diet of “herbs” (vegetables), or (2) doing away with the age-old Biblical distinction between clean and unclean meats, or (3) abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath of the moral law (see on ch. 3:31). The person who thus claims must read into Paul’s argument something that is not there.
That Paul does not teach or even imply the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath has been recognized by such conservative commentators, for example, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their comment on ch. 14:5, 6: “From this passage about the observance of days, Alford unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath-law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined amongst the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, ‘The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day’ (see Mark 2:28)—it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers amongst those vanished Jewish festival days, which only ‘weakness’ could imagine to be still in force—a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.”
In Rom. 14:1 to 15:14 Paul urges the stronger Christians to give sympathetic consideration to the problems of their weaker brethren. As in chs. 12 and 13, he shows that the source of unity and peace in the church is genuine Christian love. This same love and mutual respect will ensure continuing harmony among the body of believers, in spite of differing opinions and scruples in matters of religion.[1]
A Possible Answer:Everyone must be given the freedom without judgment to follow their conscience in areas that do not conflict with Bible truth.
It’s important, too, to realize that in Romans 14:3 Paul does not speak negatively of the one “weak in the faith” in Romans 14:1. Nor does he give this person advice as to how to become strong. So far as God is concerned, the overscrupulous Christian (judged overscrupulous, apparently, not by God but by his or her fellow Christians) is accepted. “God hath received him.”
How does Romans 14:4amplify what we’ve just looked at?
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.4. Thou that judgest. Paul is addressing the weak brother, since “judgest” corresponds to “judge” in v. 3. Another man’s servant... The Greek word here used for “servant” (oiketēs) is rare in the NT, occurring only here and in Luke 16:13; Acts 10:7; 1 Peter 2:18. It denotes a “household servant,” distinguished from an ordinary slave, as being more closely connected with the family. The “weak” (Rom. 14:1) believer is condemning one of God’s servants, one who is responsible to God, not to the criticizing fellow servant. Standeth. Some have understood this to mean moral and spiritual steadfastness (cf. 1 Cor. 16:13; Phil. 1:27); others, acquittal or approval in the sight of God (cf. Ps. 1:5). Falleth. In contrast with “standeth” (see above). Some view this as moral and spiritual failure (cf. ch. 11:11, 22), others as condemnation or disapproval in the judgment. Both terms are used in the first of these two senses in 1 Cor. 10:12, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Holden up. Literally, “made to stand.” In spite of the criticisms of his censorious brethren, the believer who in faith exercises his Christian freedom in the matters under question will be strengthened and supported by his Master. The one whose faith is “weak” (v. 1) may even fear that the stronger brother is in great danger by not sharing his scruples. But Paul suggests that whatever the danger, the Master, who called His servant to freedom (Gal. 5:13), has power to preserve him from the perils that freedom involves, which perils the “weak” (v. 1) brother is seeking to avoid by other means. Some, however, interpret this phrase to refer to acquittal in the judgment.
A Possible Answer: It amplifies what the preceding verses say by stating that it includes even the workers of other people... they too need to be free to do that which doesn’t concern those who may be inclined to judge them.
Although we need to keep in mind the principles seen in today’s lesson, are there not times and places where we need to step in and judge, if not a person’s heart, at least his or her actions? A Possible Answer:Yes, most definitely.
Are we to step back and say and do nothing in every situation? A Possible Answer:No. Isaiah 56:10 describes watchmen as “dumb dogs, they cannot bark.” How can we know when to speak and when to keep silent? A Possible Answer:First of all, we should pray and ask God to show us what to do. Then we need to ascertain whether or not the individual is teachable and open to what we feel we need to say. Our perimeters of response should include whether or not the issue is a matter that is within our capacity or jurisdiction to deal with. Even in those situations we must make whatever judgment based on evidence/fruit and not hearsay. We must ascertain whether our response is violating the person’s freedom in areas that do not conflict with the truth of the Bible as expressed in the established doctrines or guidelines of the church. How do we strike the right balance here?A Possible Answer:Maybe keeping a balance shouldn’t be a priority. We probably should evaluate everything on an individual basis and respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as to what we should do.He will guide us particularly because some things need to be said as a witness while other things need to be said with the hope of building the recipient up.
MondayDecember 25Before the Judgment Seat
Read Romans 14:10. What reason does Paul give here for us to be careful about how we judge others?
Romans 14:10But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.10. Why dost thou judge? The first part of this verse is emphatically expressed in the Greek: “But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you also, why do you set at nought your brother?” The one judging his brother is the one who “eateth herbs,” and the one setting at nought is the one who conscientiously believes he “may eat all things” (v. 2).
We shall all stand. In the Greek the word for “all” is in the position of emphasis. All of us, both weak and strong, are to stand before the divine tribunal. Since all believers are alike subjects and servants of God, and must all stand before the same judgment seat, they have no right to sit in judgment on one another. Such judging usurps a prerogative of God (Rom. 14:10; cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).
Of Christ. Textual evidence favors (cf. p. 10) the reading “of God.” The reading “of Christ” may have come in from the parallel passage in 2 Cor. 5:10. God the Father will judge the world through Christ (see Rom. 2:16; cf. Acts 17:31).
A Possible Answer:Since all believers are alike subjects and servants of God, and must all stand before the same judgment seat, they have no right to sit in judgment on one another. Such judging usurps a prerogative of God. (ibid, above)
We tend to judge others harshly at times, and often for the same things that we do ourselves. Often, though, what we do doesn’t seem as bad to us as when others do the same thing. We might fool ourselves by our hypocrisy, but not God, who warned us: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:1-4).
What is the significance of the statement from the Old Testament that Paul introduced here? Rom. 14:11.
Romans 14:11For it is written: “AsI live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.”11. It is written. In the original quotation from Isaiah the oath of homage expressed by the phrase “shall swear” (cf. Joshua 23:7; 2 Chron. 15:14; Isa. 19:18) marks the submission of the whole world to Jehovah and the solemn confession of His sovereignty.
A Possible Answer:The significance is that Paul uses these words to emphasize the universal character of the final judgment.
The citation from Isaiah 45:23supports the thought that all must appear for judgment. “Every knee” and “every tongue” individualizes the summons. The implication is that each one will have to answer for his or her own life and deeds (Rom. 14:12). No one can answer for another. In this important sense, we are not our brother’s keeper.
Keeping the context in mind, how do you understand what Paul is saying in Romans 14:14?