Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

Since its dawning in ancient Jerusalem, the enlightening rise and course of the gospel of light has been blotted out by neither time nor space. It is an ageless message for all nations (1 Peter 1:24-25; Mark 16:15).

The Lord’s body in the first century was painfully bruised and broken by the antipathies of Jew and Gentile toward one another. The one human who labored most abundantly to heal these wounds was the apostle Paul, who became the specially selected ambassador to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:16-18; Romans 11:13; Gal. 1:15-16; Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 2:7), although he truthfully described himself as “a Hebrew of the Hebrew:.” (Phil. 3:4-6). A great theme from source to mouth of the stream of inspired instruction in Paul’s letter to the Romans is the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ (Rom. 1:5, 16; 2:9, 10, 11; 3:29; 9:23, 24, 33; 10:11, 12, 13; 11:11, 12, 13, 25; 16:26). The fifteenth chapter of Romans is woven tightly into this fabric.

The value of this chapter to us lies in our ability to so understand its message as to be able to apply it to our own lives. What is the meaning of Romans fifteen? How does it apply to us?

Meaning

In the fourteenth chapter of Romans, the beloved apostle discussed the problems of unity and peace in Christ as pertaining to matters of unimportance, specifically eating of meats and observing of days. There is no clear break between chapters fourteen and fifteen. Rather, in chapter fifteen and basis for the problems is revealed and broad principles are gained from it.

Apparently, the problems over matters of opinion were rooted in the soil of animosity between Jew and Gentile. The Jewish Christians would not eat certain meats and desired to keep certain days (Col. 2:13-23). Ten times in seven verses in Romans fifteen, the apostles names the Gentiles, demonstrating why Jews should accept them (verses 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 27). Verse seven states the theme of the chapter and provides the basis for its analysis.

Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.

How do we receive one another? The term “receive” is variously defined thus:

. . . denotes to take to oneself… signifying a special interest on the part of the receiver, suggesting a welcome . . . .(1)

. . . grant one access to one’s heart; to take into friendship and intercourse . . . .(2)

. . . receive or accept in one’s society, in (to) one’s home, or circle of acquaintances . . . .(3)

The word includes both spiritual reception and social acceptance. If we receive one, we will happily take him into our homes and share with him our possessions (Acts 28:2; Phile. 10-17).

The passage we are studying details several ways in which we should receive one another. The “strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak” (verse I). We are “not to please ourselves,” but

Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification (verses 1-2).

We should “be like minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus” (verse 5). To “be like minded” implies “acceptance of the equality of the basic worth and acceptance by the Lord”(4) one of the other. We ought to “with one mind and one mouth glorify God,” which beautifully figures unity of both heart and action as we together worship the Father.

We are to receive one another “as Christ also received us.” Would Christ refuse to own us as brethren (Heb. 2:11-12)? Would He decline to join our worship (Ibid.)?

Would He turn us away from His home (John 14:1-3)? Should we so do to one another? Faithful disciples, whether Jew or Gentile, in the first century received each other both spiritually and socially. Simon Peter, directed by the Spirit of God, commanded uncircumcised Gentiles “to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48) “and didst eat with them” (Acts 11:3). He thus proved we “should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:15, 28).

Why should we so receive one another? Because “Christ also received us.” What reasons can you imagine for refusing to receive any faithful brother or sister, whether spiritually or socially? Could Christ Jesus not refuse us on the same grounds with far more justification? Would you refuse one because you think he was born lower in nature than you racially or nationally? How much higher in nature is Christ than we (John 1:1-3, 14)? What about a brother lower in knowledge? How does your knowledge compare to that of the Master (Matt. 11:27)? Does a brother’s lack of wisdom deter fellowship? Are we as wise as the Lord (Mark 6:2)? Do we allow lower intelligence to interfere? How do we compare to Jesus, who, as a twelve year old boy from despised Nazareth in far-off Galilee astonished the learned doctors of Jerusalem (Luke 2:4647)? Have we greater riches than others? Are we as rich as the Prince of heaven (Heb. 11:26)? Is a brother lower in birth than you? Are you as high born as the Son of God (Heb. 1:4-5)? Is He beneath you in honor? How much honor belongs to the Lord (Heb. 1:6-12)? Is there really a legitimate reason to refuse to receive any faithful brother or sister, whether spiritually or socially?

What is the purpose of our reception one of another? It is “to the glory of God.” How do we, by receiving each other, glorify God? We thus exalt the Father because we so imitate Christ, who sacrificed His own pleasure for our good, in fulfillment of the Scriptures (Rom., 15:3-4; Psa. 69:9). In this manner, we show the same mind God has toward us. There “is no respect of persons with God” (Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:11; Eph,. 6:9; Col. 3:25;.1 Pet. 1:17), and we are condemned as sinners if we show partiality because of outward circumstances, whether that partiality be in spiritual matters (James 2:1-10) or in social (Gal. 2:11-14).

By receiving one another we fulfill the promises of God to the fathers (Rom. 15:8). Jehovah pledged to Abraham the blessing of all nations in his seed (Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). The blessings in Christ upon Jew and Gentile alike fulfill these promises (Gal. 3:8, 13-14, 16, 26-29). Our mutual reception one of another fulfills the prophecies of the unity of the saved of all nations in Christ (Rom. 15:912; cf. 2 Sam. 22:50; Psa. 18:49; Deut. 32:43; Psa. 117:1; Isa. 11:1, 10). Furthermore, such unity and peace is a happy fulfillment of Paul’s special ministry to the Gentiles (Rom. 15:13-32).

Application

Although no strife between Jew and Gentile seethes in the family of God today, a tragic parallel is obvious. Who is so blind as to fail to see the application to the relationship between black and white Christians? By what right do we meet in separate assemblies and compose separate congregations strictly on the basis of race? How can we justify the failure to receive one another either spiritually or socially? Should not faithful brothers in Christ receive each other? Should we not be one? Should we not exhibit love one for another?

Brethren, in every way Jews and Gentiles were to receive one another! Blacks and whites should receive each other. Every excuse blacks and whites can imagine to refuse one another could have been used by Jews and Gentiles against each other or by Christ against us. If not, why not?

Does the first century gospel apply to twentieth century America? I believe it does. Dear ones:

I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another (Rom. 15:14).

Wherefore, I ardently beseech you:

receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God (Rom. 15:7). Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen (Rom. 15:33).

QUESTIONS

• What is one of the great themes of Paul’s letter to Rome?
• What questions in Chapter 14 were occasions for some Christians refusing to receive others?
• If the gospel neither bound or loosed eating of certain meats and personal regard for certain days, how could these questions trouble the early church?
• How does the work of Christ help us to understand the command to “receive . . . one antoher?”
• If each man pleases himself and lets the weak make out as best he can, what will happen to the church?
• How did Peter demonstrate in his own life the principle that no man is “common or unclean”?
• How did Peter once fail to exemplify that principle?
• What are some differences in people that might appear to be problems in bringing about their unity in Christ?
• How has Christ himself set an example which proves that we can overcome in the gospel these differences or barriers?
• In your own community, are there any groups which are likely to be overlooked, shunned or rejected from a chance to hear the gospel and to share its blessings

 

Endnotes

1. W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, III (Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1940), 255.

2. –

3. W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, 1957), p. 724..

4. Bryan Vinson Sr., Paul’s Letter To The Saints At Rome (Longview, Texas, 1974), p. 280.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 2 pp. 34-35
January 11, 1979

By Melvin Curry

(Romans 14:19)

When Paul affirmed that “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all” (Rom. 10:12), he was fully aware of the problems posed by the fellowship of Christians with such different religious backgrounds. The Greeks were used to change, continually adjusting to many new and strange doctrines being introduced into their religious tradition; the Jews, however, for many centuries had submitted themselves to the absolute and immutable law of God. It was not an easy matter for them to change, even when the Messiah came. Not long before Paul wrote Romans, a group of Jewish Christians had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch “and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The crisis precipitated by their demand necessitated a clarification of the basis of fellowship between Jewish Christians and their Gentile brothers who had not been circumcised. The problem was finally resolved in a meeting with the apostles at Jerusalem. But there remained other questions that had not been fully clarified in the apostolic decrees, such as the conditions under which meat sacrificed to idols could be eaten and the keeping of Jewish holy days. It was to these matters that Paul turned his attention in the fourteenth chapter of Romans.

General Principles

Several fundamental principles had to be respected by both parties in the dispute over dietary regulations and religious festivals. First, the Lordship of Jesus had to be maintained: “Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living” (Rom. 14:9). “The rights of the Lord” had to be respected when anyone asserted his individual liberty. Second, the parties in dispute were to be aware of the judgment of God: “Each one of us shall give account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). One Christian’s judgment of another always had to be made within the context of his own judgment by God. Third, each individual’s faithfulness to God was placed in jeopardy by an uneasy conscience: “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). Paul made this point plain, “Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat” (Rom. 14:22, 23). Fourth, the opposite party in the dispute had to be considered ahead of oneself: “It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth” (Rom. 14:21). The weak brother was not to be run over roughshod; if he were led by the example of another to do what he believed to be wrong, he would be brought to grief and eventually overthrown and destroyed. Thus an activity one man had considered to be wholly right and good might be spoken of as “evil” because his action had destroyed one “for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15).

Specific Terms

The proper interpretation of Romans chapter fourteen necessitates that certain expressions be understood in context. For instance, consider the word “faith.” Paul says, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Some believe the word “faith” is used here in an objective sense, referring to the faith revealed. They affirm from this passage, therefore, that any action not authorized by the Bible is sinful. Although I agree with the conclusion reached, this interpretation woefully misrepresents what Paul intends to say. He uses the term “faith” in a subjective sense. To act in faith means to believe that what one does is right; faith reflects a clear conscience (Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 1:5).

It is often assumed that the Christian who is “weak in faith” is always wrong, and the one who is “strong” is always right. Paul classifies himself as strong in Romans 15:1, and presumably he is right in what he practices, but in First Corinthians the strong brothers who participate in a pagan festival, “sitting at meat in an idol’s temple” (1 Cor. 8:10), are condemned. Paul tells them, “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons” (1 Cor. 10:21). If one keeps in mind that the terms “weak” and “strong” pertain to matters of conscience which are subject to errors of judgment, he will not automatically be led to despise the weak brother.

In Romans 14:1 Paul admonishes that the brother who is “weak in faith” is to be received, but “not for decision of scruples” (me eis diakriseis dialogismon). The King James Version translates the Greek into English as “not to doubtful disputations.” Some commentators leave the impression that Paul does not believe Christians should debate about inferences nor attempt “to settle doubtful points” (NEB). It must be recognized, however, that matters of difference between strong and weak brothers are not necessarily to be considered indifferent matters. At least one party in dispute usually believes that participation in such activities would constitute sin.

I prefer to translate the phrase under consideration “not in order to judge his thoughts,” so as to judge his actions unacceptable and to consider him unworthy of fellowship. Paul says later on, “Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not . . . Who art thou that judgest the servant of another” (Rom. 14:3, 4)? The strong brother obviously considers the weak brother’s position wrong, but if what the weak brother believes is not forced on others, he must be left to answer for himself “before the judgment-seat of God.” Otherwise, if the weak brother’s resistance is shaken and under pressure he is led to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he will be overthrown or destroyed by doing something he considers to be a sin.

Paul mentions that the weak brother may be “grieved” (Rom. 14:15). The thought is not that he merely dislikes what the strong Christian is doing. If Paul meant that Christians are not to engage in any activity considered inappropriate by others, one’s liberty would be restricted to the point of absurdity. The grief referred to here-results from a guilty conscience; the weak brother has been encouraged by the conduct of the strong brother to engage in an action that he believes is wrong. Consequently, the example of the strong has become “a stumbling block” and “an occasion of falling.” It has allured, enticed, and tripped up the weak brother so that he has fallen into sin. How could one be walking in love and do such a thing to a brother in Christ?

Food, Drink, and Holy Days

Perhaps a brief discussion of specific problem areas mentioned in Romans fourteen is in order. First, there is the problem of eating “meat” (broma, Rom. 14:15, 20), specifically the eating of animal flesh (kreas, Rom. 14:21). For the Jewish Christians who were “weak in faith” there were at least three problems associated with eating animal flesh: some flesh was unclean because it violated the dietary laws in the Old Testament, other flesh was prohibited because it contained blood, and some could not be eaten because it had been sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29, 21:25; 1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19, 28; Rev. 2:14, 20). Part of the sacrificial tueat “was burned on the altar, part was eaten at a solemn meal in the temple, and part was sold in the market for home use” (Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, p. 220). The problem was so acute in Gentile communities that some Jews dared only to eat herbs, avoiding any possible contamination.

Paul affirms the position of the strong: “Nothing is unclean of itself” (Rom. 14:14), a truth taught elsewhere in the New Testament (Matt. 15:11; Mark 7:18, Acts 10:14-24; 1 Tim. 4:4). He is quick to add, however, “Save to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Rom. 14:14), implying that when a Christian considers certain meat to be unclean, an innocent practice becomes “evil” for him if he eats “with offense” (Rom. 14:20).

Second, Paul mentions the problem of drinking wine (oinas, Rom. 14:21). Oinos is used in the New Testament both for grape juice and fermented wine. Just what Paul has in mind here is not certain. Several suggestions are offered in the commentaries: some appeal to the total abstinence required of the Nazirites (Num. 6:3) and the Rechabites (Jer. 35:6); others think Paul refers to the wine used in pagan worship; still others find here the problem of compulsive drinking. Whatever the specific problem, Paul admonishes the strong to “bear. the infirmities of the weak” (Rom. 15:1), affirming that “it is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth” (Rom. 14:21).

The third problem concerns the observance of special days. Paul never tolerated the binding of Jewish holy days on Gentile Christians (Col. 2:16; Gal. 4:10, 11); however, he permitted the observance of such practices by Jewish Christians so long as they did not bind them on others. Some Jewish Christians could not bring themselves to abandon the observance of Sabbaths and holy days after they were baptized into Christ; not to rest on the Sabbath would have violated their consciences. Paul’s rule is: “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). Let the person with the conscience problem answer to God, but let him keep his practice to himself. The strong is not to “set at naught” the weak in such matters; nor is the weak to judge the strong.

Application Today

The teaching of Paul in Romans fourteen concerning the liberty of individual action is not to be construed as license to sin. The Christian is always free to do what is right; he is never free to do what is wrong.

No Christian will escape the judgment of God in respect to any action he chooses to perform. Whether one is fully persuaded that a deed is right or doubts that he may perform it with God’s approval does not preclude the judgment. As Paul observed, “With me it is a very small. thing that I should be.judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord” (1 Cor. 4:3, 4).

No Christian, strong or weak in faith, has a right to refuse what Christ says. We all belong to the Lord; His will must be our will. For this reason also, I prefer not to designate the activities in Romans fourteen “indifferent matters.” One can be dead wrong with a clear conscience. Whatever we do, let us remember that “we are the Lord’s” (Rom. 14:8).

No Christian, strong or weak in faith, has a right to raise a private practice to the level of public worship, wherein all present are required to participate. Brethren have been able to disagree on hundreds of issues without withholding fellowship from one another. .But issues such as the use of instrumental music in worship or the contribution to human institutional arrangements from the treasury of the local church have divided brethren because some Christians are compelled to violate their consciences in the performance of these activities. “Let. each man be fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5) before he participates, but also remember that “we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves” (Rom. 15:1). Respect for these simple principles by both “strong” and “weak” Christians would have avoided many divisions that have occured within the body of Christ.

Finally, no Christian has a right to use individual freedom as an excuse for learning the truth. Paul does not intimate that Christians are to cease from arguing their differences. Brethren must be free to preach and teach what they believe to be the truth, always being careful to listen to opposite views, and, above all else, studying what God has to say on the issue at hand.

Brethren, “let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another” (Rom. 14:19).

QUESTIONS

1. Contrast the religious backgrounds of Jews and Gentiles.
2. What specific issues created a problem at Rome?
3. What four principles were all parties to respect while dealing with their differences?
4. How does Paul use the word “faith” in Romans 14:23?
5. To what do the terms “weak” and “strong” pertain?
6. What will finally become of the brother who is pressured into violating his conscience?
7. When the Holy Spirit warns us against causing our brethren grief, he thereby forbids us from ever doing anything that another brother dislikes. Discuss whether this is true or false.
8. Why did the Jews have scruples of conscience with regard to certain observances regarding meats, drinks and days? Were these things observed in public worship assemblies: or by the action of each individual on his own?
9. Since we are to follow things which make for peace, we are free to receive and bid God speed to those who use instrumental music in public worship, and free to be received by them. Would this be a fair modern application of Romans 14?
10. What are some modern questions which an individual can settle to his own satisfaction, keeping his conscience clear, without making his own conclusion a guide for everyone else’s conscience?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 1, pp. 28-30
January 4, 1979

By Dee Bowman

The epistle to the Romans is one of the most enlightening books in the Bible. It is demanding, practical, and by its very design makes confidence and encouragement possible for every Christian in every age. The book has a basic two-fold goal. First, it brings all men under the condemnation of sin (3:10; 3:23). Secondly, it gives all men the assurance that they can be saved from such sin by obedience to the gospel of Christ which is described in Paul’s thematic (1:16) as “the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” The entire process is viewed in miniature in 6:23 where Paul says, “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The twelfth and thirteenth chapters of this great discourse constitute the most practical part of the entire treatise, citing those things which comprise the obligations and responsibilities which pertain to the individual disposed to giving himself as a living sacrifice unto God. In these chapters, it becomes obvious that the entire relationship between God and man is not at all national, nor does it have anything to do with genealogy, but is a very personal matter between the individual and God. Paul affirms such in 2:6 when he says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds . . . .” In this same connection, he declares vehemently in verse 11 that, “there is no respect of persons with God.”

The axis on which the context of our study turns is found in the first verses of chapter 12. “1 beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable and perfect will of God.” In the following two chapters are to be found a number of timely admonitions which pertain to the giving of oneself a such a living sacrifice unto God.

At the outset we observe the function of the individual in this most practical advice. Paul indicates that a man is capable of the presentation of his body in sacrifice to God by the mere fact that he enjoins its doing. It is not a matter of coercion, nor is it the action of some automaton performing by some sort of law of necessity, but a predetermined, purposeful, and very personal voluntary process. Every person must present his own body (cf. Rom. 6:17), for the assignment can be carried out no other way.

Such service is reasonable. It is reasonable because of the case Paul has so carefully prosecuted to this point. Its assignment comes as a direct result of the foregoing information concerning salvation. Since God has concluded the Gentile under sin because of his disdain for the law (Chapter 1), and since he has likewise pronounced the Jew guilty because of his disregard for the law (Chapter 2), and since he has shown both the possibility of justification by obedience to the faith of the gospel (Chapter 5, following), it is only sensible or reasonable that each person present his body as a living and active offering to God Almighty.

Such a presentation is accomplished by a transformation from the world. The process is described in both positive and negative terms. First, “be not conformed (fashioned) according to this world.” Positively, be rather “transformed.” This action is again sensible and requires the “renewing of your mind,” which implies a change in the “morph” or the essential part of man. All such action is an effort to “prove” the word of God. The term “prove” is an assayers’ term used to describe the action of ascertaining the genuineness of metals, and is here used in the sense of testing and trying to deduce the pure truth.

The responsibility of presenting one’s body as an active sacrifice to God is the most serious action if life. It means that one’s love for God is so intense that he offers himself entirely to God. In doing so, he completely releases himself without reservation to the doing of the bidding of God regardless of consequences. As such a devotee, he rids himself of his own selfish intentions and purposes and bows his entire being in meek submission to God. Let there be no mistake about it, to offer oneself as a living sacrifice to God, holy, acceptable is not a flippant or trivial act, but a mature, deliberate and serious pledge of total allegiance to the Sovereign of us all.

Man’s Areas of Operation

Every man operates in several spheres of influence simply as a result of his being a social creature. In this text, Paul will treat all of them as they each relate to the offering of oneself as a sacrifice to God. Notice carefully that at no time does the Christian ever lose his identity when he changes from one area of operation to another. Whenever, wherever he is, he must operate as one who has emphatically dedicated himself to the service of his master.

Responsibility To The Church (12:3-8)

The chuch is people. One who has determined to present himself in service to God must necessarily participate with others who share his same determination. Such action is not only necessary, but commanded (Heb. 10:23-25). This “body” of believers is the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). At the time of this writing the church had the need of spiritual gifts for its growth and spiritual well-being. Since there is a seeming propensity to elevate those who have some special talent (whether miraculously bestowed or a natural endowment does not matter) to a place of prominence, there is also a human tendency for those who receive such accolades to be high minded or heady. The man who presents his body to God must not be so inclined toward excessive and inordinate self confidence, realizing that his abilities are not of his own doing, but are provided by God. The man of God will be impressed with the need for all the various parts of the body to work together toward the accomplishment of the common goal. It is God who bestows all gifts (then as now) and recognition of that fact will cause the converted man of God to be more interested in the proper use of them than in glorying because he is possessed of them. Paul resultantly advises that he who prophecies should let it be according to what has been allowed him for its doing; he who ministers let him be content with his duty to minister; he who exhorts should pay attention to his own area of service; he who gives should give sincerely and not for public spectacle; he who teaches should attend to his own duties; and he who shows mercy should do so without begrudging his actions. In the church every man should do what he can.

Responsibility To All Men (12:9-16)

All of man’s actions should have one motive – love. Such unpretended love is not only necessary for those with whom he shares his filial relationship in the church, but for all men everywhere. For the Christian who seeks to offer his body as a living sacrifice to God, such love must extend to every area of his life and the guiding principle which regulates his every activity is to love the good and abhor that which is evil. This love will seek the best interests of all with whom he has to do.

Several things are set forth as illustrations of the type of actions which are characteristic of one who has so renewed his mind. He will not be lazy as regards his various obligations; he will be deeply devoted in his service to God (12:11). He will be seen happily rejoicing in the hope that is in Christ Jesus; he will endure meekly the vicissitudes of life; he will derive strength for the day by regular prayer to God (12:12). He is charitable to those of his kinship; he is careful to entertain strangers (12:13). He is not spiteful, but invokes blessings even on those who would do him harm (12:14). He is empathetic, involved in both the joy and the sorrow of those with whom he has contact (12:15). And he has a certain sameness toward everyone. He treats all with the same devotion and attention, be they rich or poor, educated or illiterate. And he calls no special attention to his own accomplishments, nor does he take any special pride in his own deeds. In short, he is not fashioned according to the world, but transformed to a higher and more quality existence.

Responsibility Toward Adversaries (12:17-21)

God has never assumed that man would live in a troublefree society. He has, nonetheless, imposed certain regulations and attitudes as those to be cultivated for times of unrest and trouble. That man who has presented his body as a living sacrifice must learn to “seek peace and ensue it” (1 Pet. 3:11).

Paul first advises that the Christian should not be vindictive. The reason is simple: he is not qualified to mete out vengeance. To his friends, he will be too charitable, to his enemies too strict. But he can trust God who is eminently qualified for such punitive responsibility. And he can learn that prolonged anger is not for his good (Cf. Eph. 4:26). This man with the renewed mind discourages trouble by providing for his needs without partaking of that which is evil or ill-gained.

Paul’s assignment is clear: Do not ask for trouble! Discourage difficulties! But he immediately accedes to the obvious truth that such will not always be possible. So he says, “if it be possible, be at peace,” indicating that a strenuous effort be made to make it so. And when such is not possible, the child of God is to take care not to seek to repay, but rather to “give place to wrath,” an enjoinder to wait until God sees fit to recompense, for He is well able. Conversely, the man of God will react to ill-treatment by loving his enemies and by doing good to them that despitefully use him (cf. Matt. 5:43-48). The result of such action is then shown by Paul (notice that the result is given, not the motive for doing good to your enemies): that by so doing he may cause the adversary keen reflection upon his unkind deed. He says, “be bigger than your problems!” To react to adversity with a proper attitude is to overcome evil; to do less is to be overcome of it.

His Responsibility To Civil Authority (13:1-9)

The person who is disposed to subjugate his will to that of the Father must require and maintain a right attitude toward authority. This authority takes two basic forms: supreme authority, which belongs to God, and delegated authority, or the empowerment of others by God. One such delegation of God’s power is seen in civil government. Every person must be subject to such powers for they are appointed or established by decree from God. And while it is certainly so that such powers can be abused or mishandled, the godly man must continually submit to them as long as their requirements do not contradict the laws of God. In fact, Paul asserts that to resist civil authority is tantamount to resisting God who is the source of that power.

The fact that man is a social creature demands that he have some sort of civil control. God has provided for that control in civil government. As a citizen, the Christian is to be subject, for says the writer, the very purpose for that power is to initiate such regulations as will provide for the general welfare of all those who are disposed to do right: Such respect shows regard for system, harmony, and peace. To disdain such power is to invite chaos, disunity, even anarchy. In civil law, there is the inherent right of punitive agency, or the right of enforcement, too. Paul warns that those who would disobey law should be afraid, for he says, “he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Furthermore, the Christian’s motive is a consideration. Paul says that such submission must be “for conscience sake” and not just in fear of being punished. That is, a righteous man will submit simply because it is the right thing to do, even if no one is watching!

The Christian’s obligation extends into the area of funding the processes of government and the. recognition of its various officers as well. That person who seeks to present his body a living sacrifice must extend his honesty and usefulness into this as well as all areas of life. In this regard, he is to pay his taxes, legal assessments, foreign duties and the like. To do less is to incur the displeasure of government whose charge it is to attend to such matters. In addition, the Christian is called upon to extend proper honor and accord to dignitaries, for such regard is also a demonstration of his respect for authority.

Such submissions make possible a free course of action for the God-fearing man. Also, these benign actions insure a better atmosphere in which to communicate the message of Christ. And it furthermore demonstrates to government, no matter the type, that Christianity is not a detrimental competitor to civil power, but a respecter of it. These obligations are as applicable today as at the time of their writing.

Love: The Supreme Obligation (13:8-10)

Every man who would present himself as a sacrifice to God has one social obligation which is superior to all others. He is obligated to love his neighbor. This grace-love is the kind of intellectual devotion which seeks the benefit of the object of such consideration, no matter if he is friend or enemy. Because of that fact, this debt is forever owed and can never , be completely satisfied. Paul illustrates that fact by showing that love is to be at the base of all the universally pertinent commands relating to and governing man’s relationships with his fellows. This sublimated form of human affection is the very same as was enjoined by Jesus in Matt. 22:34-40. He, too, says that it is the foundation for a proper relationship with others. In fact, the summation in 13:10 is a demonstration to a proof: “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Notice, too, that love is not just the basis of the law of conduct to others, but also the end, or fulfillment of that law as well. We see just how important the supreme motive is when we come to consider that love is both the foundation and the goal of law.

An Encouragement Is Given (13:10-14)

The final part of this great practical text provides still another motive for presenting our bodies living sacrifices to God. True, there is a warning here, but to my mind it is more an encouragement than a warning. It is similiar to the exhortation given in Gal. 6:9, “And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap if we faint not.” It seems to me that the fact that “our salvation is nearer than when we believed” is a great motivation for being sober in attitude and faithful in conduct. This kind of comfort provides fuel for perseverance and patience and being then so emboldened with such assurances, the Christian is admonished to prepare for the inevitable conflict by equipping himself with the armor of light. His conduct, then, becomes an illustration of his faith and it becomes apparent to all that here is a decent, tasteful, and modest person who is committed to serving God. Such a person is not given to carnal impulses such as carousing, drunkenness, and sexual promiscuity. He has put off all the usual proclivities toward jealousy and its accompanying strifes and has, on the other hand, adorned himself with the principles of Jesus Christ. Realizing that the flesh has nothing to offer but a moment’s satisfaction, he makes no provision for the gratification of it.

Conclusion

Let us present our bodies as living sacrifices to God, holy, acceptable to God, for it is our reasonable service. And let us not be conformed to this world, but let us be transformed by the renewing of our minds, that we may prove that good and perfect will of God. For, if we miss heaven, we have just missed all there is!

QUESTIONS

• What is the two-fold goal or message of Romans?
• Memorize Romans 12:1-2.
• Express in both positive and negative terms the change brought about in the Christian’s life.
• How should a Christian look upon the gifts and abilities which he has?
• When love renews and fills the mind, what is the practical effect on our conduct toward our fellow man?
• What may cause an enemy to be ashamed of mistreating his Christian neighbor?
• Since a government may do things which a Christian disapproves (justly or unjustly), he is freed by God from all obligations toward civil law, taxes or rulers. Prove or disprove this statement.
• God does not intend for civil government to use force or take vengeance on evil-doers. Prove or disprove.
• How can the love in a person work good to his enemy, or can love work good only toward a friend?
• If we understand that “our salvation is nearer than when we believed,” how will this change our attitudes and actions for the better?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 1, pp. 25-27
January 4, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Paul’s answer to his own question, “Hath God cast away his people?” is a resounding, emphatic, “God forbid.” In the preceding eight chapters of Romans, Paul has shown that the gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 1:16; cf. 3:22). It was God’s eternal purpose to save all men in Christ. This salvation was to be procured in Christ and secured by faith, not by works. The majority of the Jews rejected the faith of Christ and clung tenaciously to the works of the law. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, Christ, and they were cut off from divine favor (Acts 3:22, 23; Rom. 11:20). “What then?” “Hath God cast away his people?”

No, God has not cast them away. That is one of the vital points of chapters nine through eleven. Paul “could wish” himself accursed from Christ for his Jewish brethren. His desire of heart and prayer to God was that Israel “might be saved” (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1, 2). Paul labored that he “might save some of them” (Rom. 11:14), and some would be restored if they did not remain in unbelief (Rom. 11:23). That is not the language of total rejection.

Chapter Nine

In this chapter, Paul shows that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (v. 16). The Jews were attempting to dictate whom God should accept. They had been God’s people, His chosen nation. They reasoned that God must continue this policy. Paul acknowledges the proud Jewish heritage “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever” (vv. 4-6). While recognizing Israel’s background, he might be interrupted with the objection, “Well, if what you say is true then all that glory is for nought, and the word of God has accomplished nothing.”

No, Paul answers, fleshly descendants alone are not all of Israel. Ishmael was just as much a child of Abraham as was Isaac, but Isaac was the child of promise. The Jews agree, so Paul continues. Rebecca had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Esau was every bit the child of Isaac, but God said the promised seed shall come through Jacob. The Jews accepted God’s selection. Paul takes their agreement and says, in effect, “Then you must recognize that God alone determines unto whom he will show mercy. You accepted God’s choice of Isaac and of Jacob; so, you concede that it is not up to you to decide upon whom God will have mercy. God has, as various passages of Scripture reveal, determined to save the Jews and also the Gentiles” (cf. vv. 17-29).

Conclusion of chapter nine: “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (vv. 31-33).

Chapter Ten

Paul knew of Israel’s “zeal of God” to attain unto righteousness. His heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel was “that they might be saved.” But the Jews were ignorant of God’s plan of making men righteous. They tried to establish their own system of righteousness and did not submit themselves unto God’s plan of making men righteous. The righteousness of God, that is, God’s plan of making men righteous, is revealed in the gospel (Rom. 1:16, 17). The Jews refused the gospel. They were not obedient unto that form of doctrine which was delivered unto them. They remained outside of righteousness or salvation (Rom. 6:17, 18; Acts 13:43-48).

The aim and intent of the law was righteousness. No one, as Paul had proven earlier (Rom. 1-3), kept the law perfectly; hence, none were justified. Christ is the end or aim of the law for righteousness. Every one who believes on Christ attains the righteousness for which the law sought. Moses said that if one wanted to be righteous he had to keep the law (v. 5; Gal. 3:10). None kept it; so, all were without righteousness. However, the righteousness which is by faith is the word of faith which the apostles preached. There is no need to bring Christ from heaven or from the dead. If you want to be righteous, believe and confess. God will save all men, Jews or Greeks, “For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (v. 13).

Again, the Jews are pointed to Christ, to the system of faith preached by the preachers God sent. God had done all he could by sending out the preachers to preach and gender faith which comes by hearing the word of God. But the Jews, by in large, rejected it (v. 21).

Chapter Eleven

“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid.” Paul proves that Israel has not been cast away:

First, Paul was of Israel. He was accepted of God, but if Israel was cast away, if that was the point of his teaching, then he, too, would be cast away, for he was an Israelite. No man would teach a doctrine so as to exclude himself from God.

Second, remember Elijah? He once thought he was alone, but God has seven thousand faithful followers unknown to him (Elijah). So, there are now Israelites who have been obedient, who have submitted themselves, “and the rest were blinded” (cf. Matt. 13:15).

Third, Paul spoke of the efforts he made whereby he “might save some of them” (v. 14). He referred to “receiving” certain ones and called it “life from the dead” (v. 15). This is not the doctrine of absolute repudiation but of conditional salvation.

Fourth, the Jews were “broken of” “because of unbelief” (v. 20), not because of an arbitrary Divine decree. All men, Jews and Gentile are grafted in or broken off because of their belief or unbelief (vv. 20-23). “And so (in this manner; in this way – LRH) all Israel shall be saved” (v. 26). That is, by accepting the grace extended in Christ, all Israel shall be saved.

Calvinism and Romans 9-11

Calvinists have long used these chapters to sustain their major tenets.

“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy without respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment” (John Calvin).

(1) Romans 9:11-16: This passage is used by Calvinists to prove unconditional election. The text does not refer to the salvation of either Jacob or Esau. It speaks of God choosing Jacob rather than Esau to be the chosen seed through whom the children of promise would come. The quotation in verse thirteen is from Malachi 1:2, 3. That statement was spoken of “two nations” (Gen. 25:23), not two persons. It was uttered many centuries after both Jacob and Esau were dead. To fit Calvinism, verses 11-13 should read like this: “For the children, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to unconditional election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall be unconditionally, eternally damned because I hate him, but the younger shall be unconditionally, eternally saved because I love him.”

Verses fifteen and sixteen are used to prove that man’s will and efforts are not involved in his salvation. This, however, is not the point of the text. The Jews were not arguing that one’s salvation is by conditional works without God. The Jews claimed spiritual ties with God because of their fleshly state. They said, “We are Abraham’s seed.”

Paul shows that God made His own selection of who should be the promised seed. It was Isaac, not Ishmael; it was Jacob, not Esau; so, it is God’s right to determine to whom He shall dispense His mercy.

Calvin taught unconditional damnation. Many “would be” Calvinists reject this as too harsh. They want unconditional salvation but not unconditional damnation. They cannot have one without the other. Using the Calvinists’ concept of Romans 9:16, we ask in reverse, “Is damnation not of our will or labor but of God that showeth no mercy?”

(2) Romans 9:25, 26: This passage does not fit Calvin’s unconditional assumptions. If a specific number of individuals have been elected to be saved and a set number have been ignored to be damned, as Calvin taught, it could never be said that some are called God’s people which were not my people.” One is and always has been one of God’s people or he has not, according to Calvin. There is no way to harmonize this text with the doctrine of unconditional election.

Fleshly Israel sought righteousness “by the works of te law” (Rom. 9:32), but righteousness is by the system of faith, by the obedience of faith, by obedient faith to the faith (Rom. 1:5; 5:1; 6:17, 18; 16:26).

(3) Romans 11:6; “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” This verse is used by Calvinists to teach unconditional election. But the passage says “works,” not conditions. Salvation is not by works. Salvation by works requires perfect obedience. It does not allow for a single sin (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10). Once one sins, salvation is a matter of grace. One may meet a thousand conditions, but this would not merit or earn forgiveness. The “works” under consideration are not acts of obedience to terms of pardon. The “works” refers to the man who never sins, who always does right. To that man salvation would not be by grace. God would owe salvation to such a man.

Calvinists read the verse with their misconception of works. To them, Paul says, “And if by grace, then is it no more of conditions, but if it be of conditions, then is it no more grace.” But it does not say that. It says salvation is by grace, not by works, for works, perfect obedience, exclude grace.

Romans 9-11 and Premillennialism

(1) These three chapters do not mention:

a. Christ on an earthly throne in Jerusalem.

b. A restoration of the Jews to Palestine.

c. Superiority of the Jews over the Gentiles.

d. That Christ’s kingdom was thwarted by Jewish rejection.

e. A future era or time of Jewish glory.

f. That the Jewish nation will be turned to Christ regardless of their response to him concerning the gospel.

(2) Application of Prophecies: Paul applies the prophecies to his day, to the present age, not to some future time. This is a fatal blow to premillennial views. In chapter nine, Isaiah and Hosea are used to show the acceptance of all Jews and Gentiles who seek righteousness by faith (9:24-29). In chapter ten, Isaiah and Moses witness to the refusal of the Jews to be obedient to the gospel. They also allude to the fact that salvation will be given upon obedience to the gospel. There is no hint of an earthly kingdom. In chapter eleven, the present age is more pronounced. First, the Deliverer “shall come out of Zion,” not “out of heaven” (11:26). Thus, the prophecy refers to the first, not the second coming. Second, verse five says, “at this present time,” not “in a glorious future era,” but “at this present time.” “Also,” refers to Elijah’s time. As there was then a remnant; so, there is now a remnant. Third, God is able “now” to save some (vv. 14, 23, 31). A future age of salvation apart from the gospel is not in the prophecies of Romans 9-11.

The prophecies Paul notes and quotes refer to the taking away of sins (11:26, 27). The Deliverer shall “turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 concurs. He says the prophets have spoken “of these days” (Acts 3:24). He shows the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham was seen in God’s sending Christ “to bless you.” How? “In turning away every one of you from his iniquities” (Acts 3:26). This “turning away . . . from . . iniquities” is the same as turning away “ungodliness from Jacob.” It is the covenant to “take away their sins” (see “covenant” in Acts 3:25; Rom. 11:2’7.) The “turning away from iniquities” equals “take away their sins.” The Hebrew writer says the same. Under the new or second covenant, God will remember their sins and iniquities no more (Heb. 8:8-13). See for yourself:

Time: “These days” (Acts 3:24).

“At this present time . . . now” (Rom. 11 :5, 31).

“Now . . . Holy Ghost witness to us” (Heb. 8:6; 10:15).

Covenant: “Covenant . . . God made . . . our fathers” (Acts 3:25).

“This is my covenant” (Rom. 11:27).

“Second . . . better . . . new covenant” (Heb. 8:6f).

Effect: “Turning away every one . . . from . . . iniquities” (Acts 3:26).

“Take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26, 27).

“Sins and . . . iniquities . . . remember no more” (Heb. 8:12).

There is no room for premillennial views in these chapters when one understands their purpose.

(3) Christ is over all: Paul affirms that Christ “is over all (Rom. 9:5). He does not say Christ “will be,” but that he “is.” With that in mind, make a careful study of Acts 13:16-42. Paul’s sermon there provides the prophetic, scriptural and historical background to the things he argues in Romans 9-11.

QUESTIONS

• Why might a person reading Romans wonder, “Hath God Cast Away His People?”
• In what matter did the Jews acknowledge God’s right to show mercy in His own way and in what matter deny it?
• Why did so many Jews in the early gospel age not enjoy the righteousness of God?
• Has God utterly rejected and cast off Jews in the gospel age? Prove your answer.
• Exactly for what purpose did God choose Jacob? Contrast that choice with the claim of Calvinism.
• Now have some modern Calvinists modified their own doctrine?
• Explain the expression which says salvation of grace is not “of works.”
• How is Paul’s use of Old Testament prophecies a fatal blow to premillennial “theories”?
• What are some key elements of premillennialism not mentioned in Romans 9-11?
• What are some things said in Acts 13:16-42 which help us to understand Romans 9-11 better?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 1, pp. 22-24
January 4, 1978