Sunday School Notes: Romans 14:1-3

¹ Accept the one weak in faith, not for quarreling over opinions. ² One believes [it is okay] to eat all things, but the weak person eats [only] vegetables. ³ Let not the one eating treat with contempt the one not eating, and let not the one not eating judge the one eating, for God has accepted him.

Chapter 13 covered attitudes toward government and taxes, and attitudes toward one another. Paul brought to the fore the themes of love, acceptance, and living the gospel, and these continue in chapter 14. In particular, Paul focuses on church unity, something that’s been at the heart of this whole letter. This is the final exhortation Paul will give his readers, and it’s an appeal to get over minor squabbles that don’t bear on the fundamentals of the faith. Paul continues the thought from the last part of chapter 13: the time is short, so get your life in order. His concern is for unity between the two factions in Rome (Jewish and Gentile Christians).

This chapter can be split into two parts: Accept the “weak” brother (vv. 1-12), and don’t put up obstacles that could do spiritual damage (vv. 13-23). The theme continues into chapter 15 for a little while, before Paul finishes with greetings, plans, and some other thoughts.

“Accept [or “receive”] the one weak in faith…”: “Accept” isn’t merely acknowledging the person’s existence, and letting them into the sanctuary. Paul is saying that this person must be received into the fellowship of the church. They are to be regarded as peers, equals before Christ, sharers of a common inheritance in Christ, and brethren in the Lord. It’s the complete opposite of the exclusionary attitude that we all too often see in churches when brethren disagree over minor issues.

“… not for quarreling over opinions.”: The Greek could simply refer to a “discerning of thoughts,” but I think the context indicates something much stronger. As we have seen in the letter, there were strong opinions held by both sides. Welcoming someone who thinks differently shouldn’t be for the sake of beating them into the ground with arguments, or putting them on trial. It should be with the pure motive of extending brotherly love to them, showing that brethren can love one another without having to agree on everything. Does this mean they would never discuss those disagreements? I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying here. I think his main concern is not so much the issues causing contention (inasmuch as the issues are not matters of salvation–e.g., justification by grace alone through faith alone, the sufficiency of the cross to save, etc.), but the attitudes of the people holding variant views. As is often the case with disputable issues, the problem is rarely the subject matter, but the manner is which it is discussed (i.e., the disputants are quick to judge, to be overbearing, to look down on their opponent, and also to develop bitterness and hurt feelings).

It is important to emphasize here that throughout this discussion, Paul refers to all the parties concerned as “brethren.” The issues he’s talking about are ones that Christians can agree to disagree on. If both sides of the dispute were to share the gospel with someone, they would be communicating the same gospel message. This means the “weak in faith” are not unbelievers, but are brethren. What does “weak in faith” mean? Probably that while they hold to the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for salvation, they still appeal to dietary restrictions and the observance of special days as an indicator of their spirituality, and perhaps believe that they will be particularly blessed by God on account of their piety. I think that, unlike the Judaizers in Galatia, these believers had not reached the point where they considered their works capable of earning salvation. Paul probably hoped that this letter would help them see the danger of their position, and turn from their sinful attitudes. I think this explains why Paul is still willing to consider them fellow believers at this point. This side of eternity, we’ll never know whether they ignored Paul and eventually became apostate, or repented and became stronger in faith.

“One believes [it is okay] to eat all things, but the weak person eats [only] vegetables.”: This verse is the bane of every Christian vegetarian! But Paul isn’t saying that all vegetarians are “weak in faith.” Rather, Paul is picking on a very real situation that’s relevant to the church in Rome. As a result of exile, Jews found themselves having to learn to adapt to pagan cultures. In predominantly pagan cities, the practicing Jew would have trouble in the meat markets, not knowing whether the meat sold had been used in pagan temple rituals (a concern to the Christians in Corinth–see 1 Corinthians 8-10), and not knowing whether the meat was kosher–i.e., prepared in accordance with Jewish food laws. As a result, rather than commit sin in ignorance by eating “unclean” meat, Jews would often abstain from meat altogether. Some Jewish Christians, still holding on to the idea that practicing Old Testament food laws gave them favor with God, continued to be vegetarian out of fear of dishonoring God by eating non-kosher meat. The Gentile Christians didn’t share those concerns, and would have considered all meat okay for eating regardless of the way it was prepared.

This fits what we already know of the situation in Rome: the Jewish Christians took pride in their Jewish heritage, and believed their continuing adherence to the Law and the traditions meant God considered them better than the Gentiles. Meanwhile, the Gentile Christians looked down on the Jewish Christians and their Law and traditions, understanding that these things were not necessary for acceptance with God, but thinking the worst of their Jewish brethren for holding on to them.

“Let not the one eating treat with contempt the one not eating, and let not the one not eating judge the one eating…”: Technically, we didn’t get to verse 3, but our discussion incorporated what Paul says here. Notice that the one who has no problem eating any meat (i.e., the Gentile Christian) has a contemptuous attitude toward the vegetarian. And the vegetarian (the Jewish Christian) sits in judgment of the omnivore. This, again, speaks to the attitudes we’ve already seen between the two sides of the dispute in the Roman church: scorn for the Jewish brother, and judging the Gentile brother to be less in the sight of God.

“… for God has accepted him.”: Here is the standard. If God has accepted the brother as one of His, who are we to judge differently? Is our judgment superior to God’s? If the person is in Christ, and has a credible profession of faith, there is no reason to mock or hold him in contempt, and there is no basis upon which to judge his standing before God. The Lord has already pronounced him “not guilty” by virtue of the merits of Christ.

These verses prompted some good discussion around Christian unity, the nature of denominations within the church, and the true basis for Christian co-operation across denominational lines. It is becoming popular among Christians to minimize theological differences and seek unity on other grounds. But we need to remember that our unity in Christ is based upon the gospel, not social ethics. For example, an Evangelical and a Roman Catholic might work together ministering to young girls outside an abortion clinic. They agree that counseling a girl against having an abortion is a good thing to do, and they might share talking points and even passages from Scripture to use. But if the girl asked them “how can I be saved?”–the most important question that girl could ask–the Evangelical and the Roman Catholic would give vastly different answers.

The situation in Rome was such that both the Jewish and Gentile Christians would give the same answer to the question “how can I be saved?” This is why Paul is so insistent that they stop beating each other up over their differences, and recognize the common bond they have in Christ. There are, indeed, doctrinal issues that would cause someone who claims to be a Christian to be declared “anathema” or apostate. Paul dealt with such in Galatians. But those issues are ones where someone professes to be a Christian but denies the heart of the gospel message. The issues between the recipients of this letter don’t rise to that level–at least not yet.

Just for the record (and I stated this in the class), I personally believe denominations are means by which, by God’s Providence, Christians can unite. As a result of human frailty and sin, our understanding of Scripture is not perfect. There are many things in Scripture that are clear, and all Christians agree upon. However, there are disputable matters which we would all agree on if we weren’t blinded by our traditions, or deficient in our understanding of history, or of God’s ways, or of language, or many other things. Some of these issues are ones that would create an uncomfortable environment should we try to worship together. By creating denominations, like-minded brethren can worship together in peace. There may also be cultural and/or linguistic reasons why, say, Korean Christians in an American town may prefer to worship together rather than in an all-English speaking church. As long as these churches all agree on the gospel, there can be co-operation and true unity between them, even if they worship separately on the Lord’s Day.

One final interesting point to note as we work through this chapter: at no time does Paul say the Jewish Christians should stop being vegetarian, or should stop observing special days. Again, it’s not the practice Paul objects to, it’s the attitude.

We’ll pick up with verse 3 next time.