It's Not About You

“Dr. Witten’s Boys

Elsewhere in this volume I mentioned the phenomenal physician who made a home for boys from difficult and deserted situations. During the course of preparing this book I was invited back to our first parish, Tazewell Christian Church, Tazewell, Virginia, to participate in its centennial celebration. One evening was designated “Dr. Witten’s Boys.” A goodly number of his adopted sons were present. There were movies and testimonials. One of the “boys”—a handsome businessman—was moderator. This is his story:Dr. Jack Witten was born in Tazewell County, attended local schools and The Medical College of Virginia, where he left an enviable academic record. He chose to practice medicine in the hills of southwest Virginia. Being disappointed in love, he never married. One night as he was ministering to a dying mother in a humble home, she plaintively asked, “Who will take care of my little boy?” “I will,” said Dr. Witten. And that was the beginning of his boy collection.Even though they lived in a spacious house with an adequate supporting staff of workers, each boy had a specific responsibility. Beneath the rather martial atmosphere that permeated the place, there was bonding love. The master of ceremonies declared that 300 boys crossed Witten’s threshold, and 150 of them received housing and schooling, many attending prestigious colleges and universities. Think of it!In a voice heavy with emotion, the spokesman said, “Doc will always live in our hearts.”What implementation of the Lord’s words: “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40).

Sermon in a Sentence

Christians need each other. It is important for Christians to live in unity—Ps. 133:1–2. We will then be considerate of others. There are various churches and modes of worship. How they worship or which day they worship matters little as long as they worship God according to Scripture.

Introduction to Chapter 14

Paul’s letters were not intended as abstract treatises on matters ethical and theological but pastoral notes addressed to real life situations in first-century churches. At Rome there were Jewish Christians who were reluctant to give up certain ceremonial aspects of their religious heritage. They were uncertain about how faith in Christ affected the status of Old Testament regulations. Others embraced the new freedom in Christ unencumbered by an overly sensitive regard for the past. Paul referred to the first group as “weak” (Rom 14:1) and the latter as “strong” (Rom 15:1). The terms are descriptive rather than judgmental, although as Stuhlmacher says, “the designation ‘weak in faith’ is based on the presupposition that strength of faith is the attitude which is really to be desired.”

Christians must be considerate of the new Christians…vs. 1-4

The church at Rome was to welcome into its fellowship those Jewish believers who were finding it difficult to let go of their religious past, but not “for the purpose of passing judgment on their scruples” (TCNT). That would be an unworthy motive for bringing them into the fellowship. The church does not exist as a judiciary body to make pronouncements on issues that in the long run will prove to be of no real consequence. Those things are adiaphora, things that do not really matter. Paul identified two classes of believers in Rome: the “strong,” whose faith allowed them to eat whatever they wanted, and the “weak” (the over-scrupulous), who ate nothing but vegetables. The tendency of those who eat whatever they want is to look down on those who for reasons of conscience are unable to exercise the same freedom. Freedom in such matters tends to create an attitude of superiority. It is tempting to hold up for ridicule those whose lifestyle is more restricted than one’s own. In the broad spectrum of Christianity those to the right are often caricatured as hopelessly fundamental. The problem is that one person’s “overly scrupulous neighbor” is another person’s “libertarian.” It all depends upon where you happen to stand along the spectrum. The Christian is not to despise or treat with contempt those who are still working through the relationship between their new faith in Christ and the psychological and emotional pressures of a previous orientation.On the other hand, the person who does not eat everything must not sit in judgment upon the one who does (cf. Matt 7:1). A natural consequence of the more restricted perspective is to condemn those who are enjoying greater freedom. What is wrong for me translates easily into what is wrong for everyone. But the fact that God has received them ought to temper one’s tendency to criticize. Since God has found room for them in the fellowship, any attempt on our part to exclude them will fail to meet with God’s approval. It is not up to us to judge the servant of another (cf. Jas 4:12). That prerogative belongs exclusively to that person’s own master. And that master is God. The strong as well as the weak will stand because the Lord is able to make them stand.

Christians must not quarrel over “how” another person worships…vs. 5-9

There was considerable diversity in the early church. Some believers regarded certain days as more sacred than others. Old Testament law had declared that feast days were consecrated to God in a special way. The Sabbath, for instance, had its own set of regulations. Other believers, however, regarded all days alike. After all, all life belongs to God, and every day offers unique opportunities for worship and service. More important is that each person be fully persuaded in his own mind. What the other person does is a matter of that person’s conscience. Each believer must be convinced for himself or herself whether or not to regard some days as more sacred than others. Those who observe special days do it to honor the Lord (v. 6). Those who eat meat do it in honor of the Lord. They bless the Lord for the provisions he supplies. At the same time, those who abstain from eating meat also do it in honor of the Lord. They too give thanks to the Lord. There is no difference in their motivation. Both conduct themselves in such a way as to please their Master.“None of us lives to himself alone” (v. 7) often has been understood in the sense of John Donne’s “No man is an island.” Paul’s statement, however, is not a sociological observation regarding the unity of the human race. What he was saying was that all believers live out their lives accountable to God. Decisions about such matters as special days and eating meat are not made in isolation but in accordance with the will of God as understood by the individual. Even in death believers maintain their relationship to God. To live means to honor the Lord. To die is no different. Whether we live or die we belong to the Lord (cf. 1 Thess 5:10). Since each believer belongs to God, it is out of place for any to question the decisions of another in matters not central to the faith.

Christians must consider the type of account that you will give to God…vs. 10-12

For this very reason” (v. 9) looks forward and is explained by the final clause of the verse. The purpose of Jesus’ death and resurrection was “that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.” His lordship is universal.104 His subjects are not merely those who are alive at the present time. All who have died previously are subject to his authority. Therefore he is the judge of all. Why then, asked Paul, do you weak believers (the abstainers) pass judgment on your brothers in Christ (those who do not abstain for the sake of conscience)? God is their judge, not you. And turning to the strong believers, Paul asked why they held the weaker Christians in contempt. It was wrong for them to look down on their fellow believers who were not as yet able to set aside the regulations that previously controlled their religious life. Each and every believer will stand before the judgment seat of God. Barclay writes, “We stand before God in the awful loneliness of our own souls; to him we can take nothing but the character which in life we have been building up.”There is no room in the family of God for one group to pass judgment on another (v. 10). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus settled the matter once and for all: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matt 7:1). This admonition, however, has often been misinterpreted to mean that we are not to disapprove of anything another person does. But how, then, would we be able to follow through on Jesus’ later instruction that “by their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt 7:16)? It is harsh and censorious criticism that Jesus opposed, not insight conditioned and made possible by biblical truth.Verse 10 states without equivocation that all believers will be judged. The judgment will not entail a decision regarding one’s salvation because according to John 5:24 the believer has already crossed over from death to life. Eternal life is a present possession (cf. 1 Cor 3:10–15). There will, however, be for every believer a judgment of the quality of his or her life. In 2 Cor 5:10 Paul said, “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” This will be a judgment based on works (cf. Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6; Rev 22:12). In the long run the validity of faith is established by the quality of life it produces. What people do is the most accurate indicator of what they really believe.Paul quoted Isa 45:23 in support of the validity of universal judgment (v. 11). Every knee will bow before God, and every tongue will acknowledge him as God. The same passage is quoted in Phil 2:6–11, where Christ’s elevation to honor comes as a result of his obedience to the messianic mission. Verse 12 serves as an emphatic summary of the previous paragraph. “Each of us then will have to answer for himself to God” (Moffatt). Since that is true, it is highly questionable, to say the least, for us to be involved in judging one another. Judging is a divine prerogative. To take up that role is to usurp the place of God himself.

Christians should not be the reason why people “stumble” in the sanctuary…vs. 13-23

So it was time for the believers in Rome to stop criticizing one another. If they felt they must reach a decision about something, they were not to place a stumbling block or an occasion to sin in the path of a weaker brother in Christ. Paul himself was fully convinced that nothing was intrinsically unclean.To Timothy he wrote, “Everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4; cf. Titus 1:15). The old taboos on certain ceremonial foods were no longer in force. Jesus taught that it is not what goes into the mouth that makes a person unclean but what comes out (Matt 15:10–11, 16–20). Nevertheless, Paul was concerned with the affect of this new freedom on the lives of those Christians who still felt that in some way the regulations of Judaism were not totally obsolete. Although no food is unclean in itself, if someone regards it as unclean, then for that person it is.We must be careful not to generalize on the principle expressed in this teaching. Paul was not saying that sin is a matter of personal opinion. He was not teaching that as long as we think something is okay it is okay for us. Scripture clearly teaches that certain things are wrong. There are, however, other matters about which there may be legitimate differences of opinion. They are secondary issues about which Christians may be of differing persuasions. In such cases “strong” believers are to be willing, as an expression of Christian love, to allow the sensitivities of the “weak” to condition how they live.If a Christian brother, unable to enjoy the freedom that is yours, is troubled by your “unrestricted diet” (Phillips) and you persist in eating whatever you wish, you are no longer acting in the spirit of love (v. 15). Paul’s instruction is clear: Do not allow your own freedom of conscience to destroy your brother or sister for whom Christ died. To influence others to act against their conscience is a serious matter. Acting contrary to what one perceives to be right is to weaken one’s own moral structure and undermine integrity. Since Christ died for believers with a weak conscience (as well as for all others), certainly it is not too much to ask that strong believers not destroy them by encouraging actions of which the weaker brothers do not approve. Elsewhere Paul discussed the same issue and added that if a weak believer is destroyed by your knowledge, your sin is not only against that person but also against Christ (1 Cor 8:11–12).

Stronger Christians are not to encourage misunderstanding by allowing what they consider to be permissible to be an occasion for slanderous talk (v. 16). After all, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteous living. For people to insist on eating whatever they want (since nothing is unclean in itself) is to reduce the kingdom to matters of dietary preference. God’s kingdom simply cannot be trivialized in this way. His kingdom has to do with righteous living. Its concerns are significantly broader and relate to issues such as peace and joy, which come from our relationship to the Holy Spirit. Those who serve Christ in this way, that is, “by recognizing that food and drink are secondary matters,” bring pleasure to God and are accepted by others. Pursuing the higher priorities is something “approved by men” and “pleasing to God.”14:19–21 The conclusion is that believers are to make every effort to do those things that lead to peace and to mutual upbuilding. Although peace with God was central in Paul’s thought, the peace he spoke of here was peace within the family of believers (cf. Ps 34:15). “Christian history, alas, shows numerous examples of people utterly earnest about nonessentials, who have felt at liberty to break the unity of the Church for the sake of their particular fetish.” We are not to destroy what God is doing by insisting on our right to eat what we want. “All food is clean” may have been a slogan used by the strong. If so, it should be taken in a restricted sense as applying to such things as people eat and drink. While freedom is a right, it is not a guide for conduct. Love serves that purpose. Rights are to be laid aside in the interest of love. That principle was firmly established by the incarnation (Phil 2:6–11). All food is now ceremonially clean (Titus 1:15), but it is wrong to eat if by that act others are encouraged to act against their conscience. The right course of action is to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine or doing anything else that will cause another believer to fall (cf. 1 Cor 8:13). If Paul began to sound repetitive in this section it was simply because he felt the issue to be so important that it bore continual restatement. The apostle knew the difficulty of driving home a point that runs contrary to the prevailing attitude.

Such issues as the ceremonial condition of food offered to God are best kept as private matters between a person and God. “Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by eating certain foods that they have approved.” This admonition is relevant to both the weak and the strong. What is wrong is to act in a way that contravenes one’s convictions. Those who eat a certain food about which they have reservations will stand condemned. That is because their actions do not spring from faith. Those who doubt do not have the assurance that what they are doing is acceptable. The final clause of v. 23 (“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”) is applicable on a much wider scale than the immediate context. Whatever is done without the conviction that God has approved it is by definition sin. God has called us to a life of faith. Trust is the willingness to put all of life before God for his approval. Any doubt concerning an action automatically removes that action from the category of that which is acceptable. This principle will be of special help to the Christian in what is sometimes called the “gray area.” If it is gray to you, it is wrong—not in itself necessarily but for the one who is considering it.

Closing

Expository Outlines from Romans 25. Christian Consideration (Romans 14:1–23)

No Christian is in any position to judge others. We would not only hurt those we judge, but hurt the work of God as well. Jesus called those who judged hypocrites—Matt. 7:5. Christians need to unite and work for God—not against each other and God’s work.