Two Ways News is a weekly collaboration between Tony Payne and Phillip Jensen – a newsletter and podcast on a topic to encourage gospel thinking for today (subscribe at twoways.news).
Regardless of the century we live in, people always find something to fight about, unable to extract ourselves from the sinful temptations of pride and passing judgment on others. It is no different in Romans 14 as food becomes the object of quarrel.
But it raises the question, how are certain foods clean to some believers and unclean to others? Are conscience and faith the same thing? What does honouring the Lord and acting in love look like? Peter Jensen joins Phillip to discuss these questions in this podcast.
For more on Romans 14 listen to Phillip’s sermon Free to be Different.
The next episode is Hope for Humanity. The previous episode is A Culture of Debt.
QUARRELLING OVER OPINIONS
Romans 14 and the dangers of judgemental disunity.
Phillip Jensen: During the time of the letter to the Romans, the church was divided in particular between Jews and Gentiles. But in Romans 14, we see it divided on practicalities of a very specific situation: food.
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 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. 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. (Romans 14:1-4)
Now it doesn’t mention Jews and Gentiles there; it mentions weak and strong.
Peter Jensen: The vegetarians and the meat-eaters. Let me hasten to say to all vegetarians listening to this that this is not against being vegetarian. But explain to me, why are the vegetarians weak in these circumstances?
Phillip: Well, he’s not referring to lack of protein. What he is referring to is the people who are abstaining from certain foods, and how they are the legalists, and it’s likely to be Jews he’s talking about. But it’s not as simple as that, because Jews ate lamb (they were not vegetarians), but they did have food laws which restricted them from eating certain things. Whereas the Gentiles would eat more widely, but also they don’t eat food offered to idols. There are a lot of parallels between this passage and 1 Corinthians 8-10, which is about food offered to idols. And so I take it, it’s the rule keeper, the legalist, as opposed to the person of liberty. The person who’s the rule keeper, who looks more religiously strong, is actually seen as the weaker of the two here.
Peter: Why do you think that is the case?
Phillip: Well, I think it’s got to do with the subject of the food laws, and the difference in the Old Testament and the New Testament about food laws.
But before we look at that, it’s interesting to note that one despises the other and one judges the other. The person who has rules and regulations is more judgmental of other people, and the people who have great freedom actually look down on those who are under the rules and regulations. (I always notice how atheists look down on anybody who believes in the faith as intellectually weakened and failing). And so here, I’m assuming it has the Jew-Gentile overtone, but it’s more the legalist and those who have the freedom of conscience on this matter.
Back to your question earlier, why did the Jews have food laws?
Peter: Well, they still do until now. If you go and shop in certain shopping centres, you will find kosher food for sale, which is very interesting. To this very day, faithful Jewish people still observe the food laws of the Old Testament, which means they can’t eat certain foods, like pork. I think we’re given a few reasons. First of all is because Israel is the people of God and needed to be aware that they are the people of God. Food unites people, or should unite people. When we sit around the table with each other, it’s almost a declaration that we are getting on okay with each other. We eat from the same plate, so to speak, we are sharing food. So what God did was made sure that his people had a division on food between them and the nations as a constant reminder that they were the people of God and that they were not worshiping idols. They were worshiping the one true God.
In terms of food offered to idols, this was a practice of giving thanks to the gods for this food. But that meant that that food was forbidden. You had to eat the food that was blessed by God. So food is a way of dividing, food is a way of maintaining the unity, the importance, the greatness of God.
Phillip: It’s very effective. We once had a family who lived across the road from us who were Jewish, and we really got on with each other. We had just so much in common, children the same age, and our children were very young at that time. But we could never eat together. They couldn’t even have a cup of coffee with us because our milk and saucepans have been used in the wrong cooking process. They were our closest friends, and yet there was more than the road separating us. It was a different world.
Peter: It is a different world. Or if you go to Jerusalem and are staying in a hotel, on a Sabbath the lift operates by going on every floor because you’re not allowed to push the button, as that would be regarded as work. So there’s a lift for Jews and a lift for Gentiles, because the Gentiles can do this. So the Sabbath also was a way in which, not only are the animals rested, not only is the Sabbath good for us, but also because it was a way of distinguishing Jew and Gentile.
Phillip: Which is a subject he goes on to in the next verse:
One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.
So the difference of law is not just food. It was a way of life, wasn’t it? And so when you have Christians, some who come from one background, others from another background, in the same congregation, carrying their religious culture, their law culture, it would cause problems.
Peter: Oh, indeed. You bring up the law. How do you see the function of the law? What does it do?
Phillip: Well, lots of things. One of the fundamental things is it condemns us because we fail to keep it. It also teaches us what is righteous, what is the mind of God. But it is interesting with some of these laws, such as the food laws, that were used to teach holiness, separation and distinction for Israel at the time, the Christian is distinctively different than that. How does it translate through Jesus? Because with Jesus paying the penalty for us in the law, he’s fulfilling the law. But fulfilling the law makes certain aspects of the law no longer the hallmark of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God in the Old Testament was the kingdom of Israel, wasn’t it? Whereas now the kingdom of God is all the world.
Peter: Yes. So the Jews and Gentiles together and the coming of Jesus that we read about in Romans 3 points to how the law testified to Jesus. In other words, I take it that the food laws, for example, we don’t just rip them out of the Old Testament because we don’t obey them directly any longer. I presume that there are ways of separating Israel out that may point to the way in which God’s people need to stand separate from the world, in the ways that Christ does. Is that a good way of putting it?
Phillip: Yes, it’s understanding the principle that was being taught in the law. The law said, do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain. But Paul makes it quite clear in 1 Timothy that it wasn’t about the oxen. It was teaching the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. The law is now written on our hearts, as the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel said would happen in Jesus, which means that we now find how the principle of the food laws show that we are different. That is what Romans 12-16 has been talking about, to not be conformed to this world. Now that you know the mercies of God in saving Jew and Gentile by the same person named the Lord Jesus, we’re not to be conformed to this world. Instead we’re to be transformed. But the way of transformation is by the renewal of our mind, so that we might know the will of God, what is good, what is right.
Peter: But Phillip, hang on a moment, so what you’re saying is that in this same congregation in Rome, you get people who have been brought up to believe the food laws are hugely important, or that the Sabbath is hugely important, and then you get this inflow of Gentiles who don’t believe that and believe they’ve been set free from that through the gospel. How do the two groups get on? Is it best to expel the law keepers? Or what advice does he give us here about such a conflict within the congregation?
Phillip: Well, let’s read on. Romans 14:5-9:
Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honour of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honour of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
The first argument he makes is that we must be fully convinced in our own mind; that is, it’s the renewal of the mind. The mind plays such an important part in this, we must be fully convinced that what we believe, what we’re doing, is right. Unfortunately, sometimes we’re fully convinced differently, but that I am persuaded of the truth is important, and that I pursue the truth is important, and what I believe to be the truth must guide how I live. And so we’re not to stay ignorant in this area, and we should try and teach one another and learn from each other. But once we’re convinced fully, then verses seven to nine spell it out in terms of ‘we live for the Lord’. I’m convinced that the Sabbath day is a special day. Therefore I have it as a special day in order to honour the Lord Jesus Christ. You say it doesn’t matter which day it is, then it doesn’t matter. Each day is for you to honour the Lord Jesus Christ. Whenever I eat, I give thanks to God for the food that I’ve received. And so I eat in honour of the Lord Jesus Christ. The word ‘honour’ is actually not there in the original text, but it still has the sense of: I live for the Lord, whether I eat vegetables only, or whether I enjoy meat. If I can’t do it for the Lord, I shouldn’t be doing it. Or, how do I know if I’m doing it for the Lord? Well, I’m fully convinced that this is right. The passage in chapter 12 on renewing the mind, says that by testing, you may discern what is the will of God, what is good, acceptable and perfect? If my mind says this is the right, then I do it for the Lord. If I don’t think it’s right, then I shouldn’t do it because I can’t do it for the Lord, because Jesus died and rose to be the Lord.
Peter: Thank you. It’s all very well because the question of what we eat does not generally arise in churches these days, but I’m presuming that what we’re dealing with here is a particular issue from which we draw general principles to apply to other situations. What are some other situations where a congregation may be torn, which would fall into this category of something where each one must be convinced, having studied the Bible, but must respect the other?
Phillip: Music and which school to send children to. These are two issues that people in current churches are disagreeing about, and often hold very strong opinions about. “You can’t praise God in anything less than classical music or in anything that is not written in the 21st century.” “Do you really care for the best for your children if you don’t send them to a Christian school?” Baptism is also another topic with a lot of disagreements. Do you baptise or dedicate your child? People can easily judge each other or despise each other.
Peter: Yes, it really does sound like it.
Phillip: So what we’re to do is be convinced in our own mind and do it to the Lord. But then it says not to be judgmental.
Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
I think that’s picking up what was said back in verse four about passing judgment on somebody else’s servant. That is, you are answerable to the Lord not to me, and I’m answerable to the Lord not to you. And while we should be encouraging each other and helping each other and teaching each other, I always get a little worried when people use accountability practices and make us accountable to each other. Maybe this is another thing that we are divided over. People use accountability practices for benefit, but ultimately, my decisions must be reflecting my understanding of what the Lord’s will is, for my accountability is to him as his servant. And so I shouldn’t be judging you, but assuming that you too are being accountable to the Lord.
Peter: Both of which assume that in good faith, both sides are seeking the will of the Lord. So it’s not just because of prejudice or the way I was brought up. Both sides are sincerely seeking the Lord’s mind on such a subject and not just using God’s name to rationalize my own thinking.
Phillip: Now the second half of the chapter starting from verse 13 kicks off about non-judgmentalism.
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.
That’s the pivot between the two halves of the chapter–given we’re not going to judge one another, how now do we relate to each other? Well, the concern is to make sure that we do not put any hindrance, any stumbling block, in front of another.
Peter: Yes, but verse 14 is one of the strangest verses. Could you explain that to me?
Phillip: Well, you said earlier you didn’t know at first whether Paul thought of himself as strong and weak. Verse 14 answers your question–he thought of himself as strong.
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.
Paul is the strong man who knows that all food is clean. In Mark 7, Jesus declares all food is clean. You remember Peter and the conversion of Cornelius, where God speaks several times: Don’t call what I’ve created unclean. Paul writes of it as well in 1 Timothy 4. But there are still people who think of something as unclean, and if they do, then for them, it is unclean.
Peter: How can that be the case?
Phillip: It is unclean only for them, because for a person who thinks a particular food is unclean and to go ahead and then eat it, they’re not eating out of faith. They’re not eating for the service of the Lord. They’re actually now doing that which is wrong.
Peter: Do you think that is because of social pressure? For example, I’m now doing something which I think is wrong, but I will do it to please you, which is not a good motive. It’s a very bad motive.
Phillip: Yes, that could be one of them. Our motives have to be sincere, consistent with our thinking.
Peter: Which is to please the Lord.
Phillip: And to be fully convinced in what would please the Lord, because as my mind is renewed, I’ve got to test and see what is pleasing, what is right, what is good, what pleases the Lord. And these people haven’t reached where Paul has reached, that there is nothing unclean. And so for them, it still is unclean, and they mustn’t eat of it.
Peter: Is this something to do with conscience?
Phillip: Conscience or faith? They are much the same thing. The conscience is the sense of what is right and what is wrong. Trusting the Lord Jesus Christ is what’s right, and acting out of distrust, acting because you’re not assured of Jesus, that’s what’s wrong. So yes, I think that is what is meant here, although ‘conscience’ is not the word that is used. ‘Faith’ is the word that is used here, as we’ll see as the chapter goes on in verses 15-23:
For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 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. 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.
That last verse is very stark, isn’t it?
Peter: It is, and it’s doctrinally so powerful: “for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin”. It’s to do with the motive for our behaviours. Faith is only as strong as what you have your faith in. So our faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ. But if we have faith in our own ability to achieve, if we have faith in the opinions of others, if we have faith in a number of other things, it’s not faith, and therefore it’s sin.
Phillip: Yes, because if I believe this is wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway, that’s not faith in God, because God determines what’s right and wrong. So that will always be sin.
Peter: But you can imagine a person who holds the view that eating, in this particular case, that eating certain foods is wrong, changing their minds as they study the Scriptures more and ask themselves, what is Jesus really saying here?
Phillip: Well, in my early years as a Christian, I believed that to drink alcohol was a sin. I came through the study of Scriptures to see that drinking alcohol is not a matter of sin, and so I’ve changed my mind. But I still don’t drink alcohol. That’s a choice that I made, but it’s a choice that’s not to do with sin. So I am free to drink alcohol. I choose not to, for the sake of other people. But when I believed it was sin, it would have been very sinful for me to have done it, even though, for the person standing next to me, it wasn’t sinful. The social pressure to drink alcohol was very great, and that’s still the case in the Australian culture. There’s a terrific pressure that men have to drink alcohol. I had to work out that it wasn’t alcohol that I was objecting to, it was the pressure that was being put upon me to drink it that I was objecting to, and I still object to that pressure.
Peter: Yes.
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
I presume that one way of reading this verse is to go back to Romans 5 where it talks about justification, righteousness and peace, peace with God, and joy in the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with love. These are things that God has given us. It’s like going back knowing the mercies of God in Romans 12:1-12. So look to the big thing, which is the kingdom of God and the gospel, and make your judgments in the light of the great things God has done for us in Christ, rather than trivial complaints about matters which your brother may be wrong but has yet to see the truth.
Phillip: Yes, and he is saying a very important thing because nearly every religion of the world and forms of Christianity still make what you eat and what you drink as being the essence of godliness, which it actually is not. And so knowing that it is good, I’m not going to allow that which is good to be spoken ill of by having the fight with people about it. And I’m not going to allow the work of God to be destroyed for something like food. And so verse 20, it’s really emphatic in the Greek where it says “for food”. That is placing food in far too important a place. I’ll be destroying the work of God if I cause my brother to stumble. So therefore the strong who knows he can eat anything, will choose not to eat that which causes his brother to stumble.
Now at this point, what the Christian is suggesting is different to anything the world has. This is what is called walking in love. This is self denial for the sake of the other person, because you are like Christ who denied himself for the sake of the other person. It’s fundamentally Christian to not use my license to be a matter of Christian freedom. And verse 18 says,
Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.
It’s by not eating and drinking in a way that would cause a stumbling block to my brother that I am serving in Christ.
Peter: And to do otherwise is a sin because it comes out of lack of faith. You may be exalting yourself with your freedom, but that is not true freedom. Luther once said, you’ve been set free entirely, which makes you free of all, and it makes you the servant of all.
Phillip: Yes. And this is a profoundly positive thing. We mustn’t be surprised or shocked by fights in churches. But a study in the US showed that evangelical churches were the largest, most thoroughly integrated gatherings that these (non-Christian) researchers had ever witnessed, and that is because I take it that our brothers and sisters in America are putting Romans 14 into effect, as we should be around the world.
