Truth Magazine

By Hal Snyder

Over the years people have identified three kinds of teachers, each of which are remembered (or forgotten) for different reasons.

– There are teachers who are never remembered because they influence their students so very little.

– There are teachers who are never forgiven (unless it’s after they’ve passed away) due to their harshness and failure to communicate concern.

– There are teachers who are never forgotten because of their care and effectiveness in helping their students grow.

The story is told of James Michner, the author, who once declined an invitation from President Eisenhower for dinner at the White House because it was scheduled for the same evening that Michner’s high school teacher was being honored. It seems that the author would not be missed at the White House, but he would be dearly missed by his teacher, to whom he owed such a debt.

There are several qualities we must possess if we are to be effective teachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. Effective teachers must know God and his Son, Jesus. “This is eternal life, that they might know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (Jn. 17:3). Many of us have not had a new thought about God since we were children. An effective teacher evaluates his concepts of and about God constantly (to be sure they are both complete and accurate).

2. Effective teachers must know the message they desire to communicate. A farmer once remarked, “You can’t no more teach whatcha don’t know than you can come back from where yah ain’t been! ” Unfortunately some people have developed the concept that one must be suspicious of an “educated” preacher, as if he is not “called by God” and cannot be trusted. This presumes the claim of continued guidance and revelation, neither of which arrangement is Bible taught (Gal. 1:8; 2 Jn. 9-10). It is imperative that the teacher of the gospel be properly prepared (Eph. 6:15), which preparation is gained through diligent study (2 Tim. 2:15).

3. Effective teachers must know the mission and the true nature of the church. The church is the “body of Christ” (Col. 1:18). Its mission is the same as was Christ’s when he walked this earth. Notice that Christ evangelized saint and sinner alike (Lk. 19:10); and stressed edification (strengthening the saved, Luke 22:32), individual responsibility in benevolence matters (Matt. 25:34-46), and worship and devotion to God (Lk. 4:16-21; Jn. 4:23-24). Our mission is to do the same and to give the world the opportunity to be Christians only. We do not need to restore the Restoration, so much as we need to restore the church of the New Testament. Understand that most religious groups teach and practice some truth. The primary difference between the denominations and the churches of Christ is that we seek to practice all of the truth at the same time. Knowing this difference and communicating this difference well is what makes a teacher effective.

4. Effective teachers must know human nature. The parable of the sower describes four different kinds of soil: wayside, rocky, thorny, and good (Matt. 13:3-8). Even the good soil was varied, some bringing forth 100, 60, and 30 fold (Matt. 13:23). People have varying temperaments and God recognizes this (Rom. 12:18). We are asked to give some thought as to how to answer everyone (Col. 4:6) and to “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). The content of our message will be more readily received if it is accompanied by love, tact, respect, and sincerity, especially if we arc recognized as having integrity. The Roman poet Cicero once remarked that an orator was “a good man speaking well.”

Conscientious Christians often excuse themselves from teaching because they feel unworthy and inadequate to attempt such a serious task (presumably because the consequences of eternity, are so far reaching). It should be stressed, however, that ones who have the talent and opportunity (Matt. 25:15-30) will be held responsible for the failure to teach (Jas. 4:17; 2 Cor. 5: 10), even as one must answer for a defective effort at teaching (Rom. 14:12).

Our Lord depends upon the preaching and teaching of his word for the furtherance his kingdom (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 20:20). If we fail, he has made no other provisions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV; 9, p. 271
May 3, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote” Stephen D. Eckstein, History of the Churches of Christ in Texas (Austin: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963), pp. 92-93.

In History of Churches of Christ in Texas, S.D. Eckstein, Jr. gives a brief account of affairs in Longview. We regard this as a tribute to brother John T. Poe, pioneer preacher.

“On June 7, 1875, twenty members dedicated the new edifice. During the next decade, the church grew rapidly until the organ question arose.

“Although the congregation did not use instrumental music in its services in 1884, some members indicated their sentiment for an organ by circulating the following advertisement: ‘A magic lantern entertainment for the benefit of the Episcopal Church will be given in the Christian Church – Admission 250, children half price – proceeds to be applied toward purchasing a new organ for the Episcopal Church.’

“Immediately, minister Poe denounced the advertisement as an endeavor to ‘court favor with all the Babylonish sects,’ and cried for an Elijah who might give ‘thus saith the Lord.’ In spite of the resulting controversy, the church increased to about seventy by 1899. However, when L.A. Dale introduced the organ into the church in January, 1895, the inevitable division occurred. The twenty-five anti-organ members, who withdrew under Poe’s leadership, termed the majority ‘heretics and schismatics.’

“Even though the minority group reorganized within a week, the discouraged Poe soon moved away. When he returned in February, 1900, he found only a few still opposed to the organ. Evidencing great tenacity, he gathered seven anti-organ disciples who worshiped together for a year without receiving any additions.

“When the first convert was added in March 1901, Poe exclaimed, ‘Praise the Lord!’ Within six months, the church numbered nineteen staunch members” (pp. 92-93).

It is not difficult to “read between the lines” here, for a human-interest story, oft-repeated today.

(1) A church divided (though they still meet together) with liberal fun-and-popularity-loving members, and staunch conservatives.

(2) The preacher’s denunciation of the “magic lantern” trick; with his appeal for scriptural authority.

(3) Appeal ignored, organ introduced with majority backing.

(4) Minority thus forced out of the building, for conscience’s sake.

(5) Charges and counter-charges, and – no doubt many hard feelings.

(6) The “anti’s” reorganizing, but experiencing early discouragement and losing members. (Personal feelings do not make for loyal Christians.)

(7) After long, hard struggle, the “faithful few” begin to move forward once more.”

It may be interesting to ask yourself: “If I had been there would I have stayed with that small group of so-called ‘anti’s’ and contended for a ‘thus saith he Lord’?”

Don’t kid yourself. Take a look at how you stand today.

– Robert F. Turner (from Plain Talk, September 1965)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, p. 245
April 19, 1990

By Harry R. Osborne

In the last article, we saw that Romans 14 instructed brethren who differed on eating meat to “receive” one another. Our study of the context revealed the difference under consideration was one in which both practices (eating and abstaining from meat) were right in and of themselves -they were matters of indifference. Since no sin was involved, God accepted the practice of each person. They were to receive one another based on the fact that God has first received both of them in their practice (v. 3). If one applies this exhortation to matters of doctrine, he misuses the text.

Statements From Commentators

In writing commentaries on Romans, our brethren have emphasized the nature of the differences under discussion in chapter 14. Though they have used various expressions to convey the idea, they are clearly saying the same thing. R.L. Whiteside says it speaks of “a matter of opinion or indifference” (A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, Denton, TX: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945, pp. 268-269). Moses Lard noted the following:

These thoughts are his own private opinions respecting things about which there is no command. He, therefore, has the right to hold them without interference from others. The things which his thoughts respect are in themselves indifferent; and therefore the thoughts which relate to them are indifferent (Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1875, p. 413).

Commenting on Paul’s instruction to receive the weaker brother with his scruple against eating meat, Bryan Vinson, Sr. said, “Now, if it was a matter of faith and authorized duty, instead of opinion and therefore a matter of indifference, such a qualification would not be proper” (Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome, Longview, TX: Author, 1974, p. 261). In overviewing the nature of this chapter, A.W. Discus observed, “In this chapter he (Paul) deals with things or matters that are indifferent within themselves” (A Brief Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Church at Rome, Tampa: Author, n.d., p. 99).

Of course, the fact that our brethren almost unanimously make this point does not make it correct. That which is correct is ultimately found in a study of the text as we have already done. The comments of knowledgeable brethren should, however, cause us to look with caution at any attempt to make a broader application of the passage.

False Applications of Romans 14

Unity in Diversity. Earl F. Palmer, a Presbyterian, wrote a commentary on Romans called Salvation by Surprise. His comments on Romans 14 represent the thinking of many modern denominationalists on this passage. He says that all differences “other than the central question of the Lordship of Christ” come within the scope of this passage (Salvation by Surprise, Waco: Word Books, 1975, p. 168). Therefore, as long as one says he believes Jesus is Lord, he must be received even though his actions violate the will of the Lord he professes to believe. When our brethren begin to seek a basis for a “broader fellowship,” they begin to edge closer and closer to this denominational position regarding Romans 14.

In the January 1961 issue of Mission Messenger, Carl Ketcherside wrote an article entitled “Unity in Diversity” which outlined his rationale for a broader fellowship. In that article, he equates the differences mentioned in Romans 14 with every modern difference our brethren have had over the worship, work and organization of the church. Those embracing this reasoning have continued to enlarge their border in order to receive the errors of pentecostalism and even modernism. As each step away from God is taken and his word is ignored, they abuse Romans 14 in search of a justification.

One of the editors of Christianity magazine, a paper widely circulated among brethren, supported the notion of a “unity in diversity” plea. In justifying such he said, “The issue in Romans 14 is precisely the establishment of the right of brethren to differ in matters of faith. “‘ However, as we have seen, such a statement is in direct opposition to the text. The text shows the questions under consideration to be matters of opinion or indifference, not matters of revealed faith. The writer of this article dismissed the idea that Romans 14 speaks only of matters of indifference with this logic, “Common sense tells me that without the need of revelation” (Ed Harrell, Christianity, April 1989, p. 6). When our subjective conclusions of “common sense” which are not necessary from the text itself are elevated to the level of the text itself, we are on very dangerous ground.

Instrumental Music and the Missionary Society. J.W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton co-authored a commentary, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans, as the third volume of The Standard Bible Commentary series. Before the commentary on Romans was finished, McGarvey died (19 i 1). Pendleton, who accepted the use of instrumental music in worship to God and the Missionary Society, attempted to justify such on the grounds of Romans 14:

In modern times controversy over meat sacrificed to idols is unknown, but the principle still applies as to instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Such matters of indifference are not to be injected into the terms of salvation, or set up as tests of fellowship (Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1916, pp. 525-526).

Of course, Pendleton understood the distinction in principle between matters of faith and indifference, but he incorrectly regarded the instruments and societies as matters of indifference.

It is not a matter of indifference to add instrumental music in worship to God because it transgresses or goes beyond the pattern of singing which God authorized (2 Jn. 9). Nor is it a matter of indifference to add the missionary society because it transgresses the pattern of the allsufficiency of the local church (2 Jn. 9). Any attempt to justify such unlawful actions is a misuse of Romans 14 in justifying sin and error!

Homosexuality. Norman Pittenger in his book, Timefor Consent, contends that the Bible does not clearly condemn “monogamous, loving homosexual unions” as most religious people think. He argues from Romans 14 that those who reject homosexual people from fellowship in the church “have utterly failed to understand the Christian gospel” (Quoted from John R. W. Stott, Christianity Today [22 Nov. 85], pp. 26-27). However, homosexuality is condemned repeatedly in God’s Word (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). It is a violation of the pattern laid down by God in the beginning to provide for the sexual fulfillment of both sexes in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage (Gen. 2:24; Heb. 13:4). The practice of homosexuality is sinful, not a matter of indifference. Therefore, we may not receive the one practicing the sin or justifying the practice of such on the basis of Romans 14.

Brethren who say that Romans 14 applies to matters of sin rarely want to include the homosexual in their “broader fellowship.” Why is that? If it applies to some sins, why not all sins? The brethren who say Romans 14 applies to individual action (even where sin is involved) as opposed to church action are not consistent in this area either. The homosexual does not involve the church with him in his sin – it is individual. Why not receive him? The reason is simple when we properly understand Romans 14 – it is a matter of sin, not a matter of indifference!

Errors on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage. It is a sad fact that many brethren have differences over the Bible teaching on this subject. An article in Christianity magazine concluded that “doctrinal unanimity” on this subject “probably cannot exist” (Ed Harrell, Christianity [Nov. 88], p. 8). From that point, he went on to suggest that Romans 14 be applied to those teaching error on the subject as long as the teacher of error is honest, sincere and not factious (Harrell, p. 9). Following this line of reasoning, the one practicing the error taught by the teacher must also be received as long as he is “fully assured in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). In essence, this is exactly the same approach taken by Pittenger to receive homosexuality.

As we have already seen, however, Romans 14 deals with differences over matters of indifference. Jesus says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except forfornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Is adultery a matter of indifference? Whether one teaches that the alien sinner is not amenable to his law or that the guilty fornicator may lawfully remarry, the end product is to condone adultery! As we noted before, John says no harbor is to be given to the one condoning sin (2 Jn. 9-11). The practice or preaching of error on this subject finds no safe quarters in Romans 14!

Conclusion

We cannot provide for the toleration of differences by merely asserting that they fit into Romans 14. The chapter provides no shortcut to fellowship which bypasses the need to seek God’s instruction on any issue. Romans 14 regulates our fellowship only in matters of indifference where differing practices are both right in and of themselves. True, one may not initially recognize the practice to be a matter of indifference just as the weak brother in Romans 14 initially failed to see eating meat in that light. Thus, we must be able to show that God allows a practice as Paul showed regarding the eating of meat before we can rightfully apply the solution of Romans 14. A practice comes under the regulation of Romans 14 not because we think it does, but because the facts of God’s word prove such. Let us be careful not to open the door to doctrinal error, sinful practices, and apostasy through an abuse of Romans 14.

(Note: This material was offered to Christianity, divided into three short articles so as to fit their format. The first issue of Christianity stated the policy of allowing no room for “the language of contemporary controversy” orfor open “debate. ” They are unwilling to move beyond thisfiawed policy. Ed Harrell said in refusing to print this material, . . . we have no intention of allowing Christianity magazi . ne to become a medium of doctrinal debate. ” Dee Bowman’s response (which I quote in its entirety) said, “Your observation that each editor of ourpaper has the independent right to choose what is published in his issue is correct. Since I have chosen not to publish your material, I am returning it to you in accordance with your request. ” None of the other editors was willing to print this material.

As of the time this material was submitted, Christianity has printed a total of 13 articles in an attempt to justify the continued fellowship of those espousing admittedly false doctrines on divorce and remarriage. Romans 14 has been given as the Scripture condoning such. No alternate view of the passage has been published to give brethren an opportunity to evaluate boths ideas of the question. The magazine’s “positive” policy of no open discussion and debate commits these brethren to the conduct of one-sided debate, monologue, andfilibuster in their discussion of controversial matters. The policy would have us believe that closing the doors to open discussion is the “positive” path. However, such apolicy actually leads to misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and alienation between brethren. The very thing the policy intended to avoid is produced. This all-positive, no-debate policy was not the apprach of Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (1 Kgs. 18; Matt. 21-23; Acts 15:1-7; 17:17; Jude 3). Truth has nothing to fear from investigation, but shines more brightly in the crucible of controversy. To shun the process of open investigation and controversy is an error and can only make us more vulnerable to others errors sooner or later. It is my fervant prayer that we will open our hearts and minds to one another as we endeavor to discuss matters wherein we differ with love towards one another as brethren. – Harry R. Osborne)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 9, pp. 262-264
May 3, 1990

By Harry R. Osborne

In every generation, there is an attempt to justify a “broader fellowship” to include those preaching and practicing some sin or doctrinal error. The attempt to justify such invariably includes Romans 14. The advocate of a “broader fellowship” notes the apostle’s instructions to “receive” the one with whom we have a difference in preaching and practice (Rom. 14:1). The next step is to say the differences discussed would include a doctrinal matter or practice of some sin. Thus, we are told we must “receive” those who are preaching some errors or practicing some sins if we obey this instruction. The crux of the issue is this: Does Romans 14 include doctrinal error and sinful practice in the differences under discussion?

The issue is not whether brethren who differ on an issue need to be longsuffering with one another. The Bible clearly teaches a longsuffering and forbearing attitude as essential for unity (Eph. 4:1-3). God says clearly that we are to “admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all” (1 Thess. 5:14 – emphasis mine, HRO). Paul’s exhortation on restoring in a spirit of gentleness one who is overtaken in a trespass is a principle we must teach and practice. In the case of a brother sinning against us personally, Jesus shows that we must exhaust every effort to solve the matter before counting him as “the Gentile and publican” (Matt. 18:1517). Even the factious man is to receive the first and second admonition before we refuse him (Tit. 3:10). We can never be justified in severing the bonds of fellowship at the drop of a hat. We have responsibility enjoined of God to be longsuffering in our search for the resolution of every difference between brethren.

The focus of this study is on the proper application of Romans 14. Does it justify the continued acceptance of some doctrinal errors and sinful practices or is its scope limited to matters of indifference? In this study, we will see that the apostle is discussing matters of indifference or opinion. The differences in practice discussed involved only those areas in which either of the different practices involved no sin, both were right in and of themselves.

Study of Context

Paul’s instruction to “receive” the brother with whom we have a difference is immediately seen as a contrast to John’s instruction in 2 John 911. John commands another way of dealing with the differing brother, “receive him not” (2 Jn. 10). Do the two writers contradict one another or are they speaking of two entirely separate types of differences?

In 2 John, the difference under consideration is plainly declared to involve the doctrine (KJV) or teaching (ASV) of Christ. John speaks of one who transgressed God’s will, thus, sin was committed. As a result, this one was no longer in fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9). Not only was the practice of such sin condemned, but so also was the teaching that would justify it. Therefore, faithful Christians were urged to make no provision for and give no encouragement to the preaching of the doctrinal error (2 Jn. 10). The provision for or encouragement of such sin and error was condemned as illicit involvement in the “evil works” of the transgressor (2 Jn. 11). Clearly, John says no harbor is to be given to the one practicing sin or preaching error.

Furthermore, we cannot interpret what Paul wrote in Romans 14 in such a way that it contradicts what he wrote in other places. For instance, Paul tells these same brethren at Rome to “mark” and “turn away from” some (Rom. 16:17-18). Did he contradict what he wrote just two chapters earlier? No, the contrasting instructions stem from the contrasting types of differences under consideration in each passage. Paul repeatedly says in his writings that some are not to be received (Eph. 5: 11; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; Tit. 3: 10-11; Gal. 2:5). Brother Irven Lee made the following observation:

The fourteenth chapter of Romans does not say one word in defense of the man who knows he is openly and deliberately violating God’s law. No man is allowed the luxury of fulfilling the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:16-21). A man must control his temper and his passion if he would be called a brother in good standing among Christians. Repentance brings forth worthy fruit (Matt. 3:8). Thus repentance is absolutely essential (Lk. 13:3; 2 Pet. 3:9).

The factious man who would cause divisions contrary to the doctrine of Christ by subverting whole houses is not the weak brother whom we shield and protect. He is a strong enemy of Christ, and consequently is to be silenced, marked, avoided, rejected, and put away from the flock (Rom. 16:17,18; Tit. 1:10,11; 3:10,11; Phil. 3:17-19). One point of maturity in the stronger Saint is the ability to discern between the weak brother who serves to the limit of his knowledge and the wolf in sheep’s clothing that would destroy the flock. The Lord has not asked his church to let the heretic be in charge lest he complain (Irven Lee, Romans For Every Man, Florida College Lectures, 1983, p. 168).

When sin and error were involved, Paul never instructed Christians to “receive” the teacher or practitioner of such as they continued in their path.

Romans 14 clearly defines the kind of differences under consideration in this context. The issue is brought into focus with the first verse:

NASV: Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.

RSV: As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions.

Phillips: Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples.

These versions correctly present the nature of the differences dealt with in this chapter – matters of indifference or opinion. Matters of indifference are those areas in which God has neither enjoined nor prohibited a practice. Thus, two differing practices may be right in and of themselves given the fact that God has allowed both practices. The two brethren who are involved in the differing practices may both be acting in the way that is right, given their diverse backgrounds, circumstances, and consciences. These variables would form the basis for the two to differ in their opinion or judgment of the practice in question and to differ in that practice, yet both be acceptable before God. In such cases, Romans 14 instructs brethren not to “judge,” “dispute,” or “argue” with one another over such matters of indifference or opinion. The rest of the chapter clearly shows this restriction to apply only in matters of indifference where the variant practices would both be right in and of themselves.

In areas of difference regarding that enjoined or forbidden by God, the differing practices would not both be right in and of themselves. In such cases, “judging” a sinful practice is right and necessary (1 Cor. 5:3-5). “Disputing” would be essential in order that harmony upon the truth might be achieved (Acts 15:1-29).

Romans 14:2 defines the stronger brother as the one who had “faith” to eat meat. This faith would come from an understanding of the principles declared by God. Paul says God created meat to be received by man with thanksgiving and “is sanctified through the word of God and prayer” (1 Tim. 4:3-5). How is meat sanctified through the word of God? It was God’s instruction, his word, which allowed man initially to eat meat (Gen. 1:29; cf. 9:3). It was God’s instruction which showed Peter that the restrictions regarding clean and unclean meat in the law of Moses were no longer binding (Acts 10: 11-16). Even when that meat had been offered to an idol, God allowed partaking of meat in a situation that gave no deference to the idol and provided no stumblingblock for another (1 Cor. 10:25-32). There can be no doubt that the practice of the stronger brother in eating meat was allowed by God – it was right in and of itself!

The basis for receiving a brother with a differing practice is clearly stated in verses 3 and 4. The meateater recognized that it was not essential to eat meat. It was the one who did not eat meat who believed the meat-eater was engaged in an unlawful practie. This false idea is plainly refuted when the apostle instructs, “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth.” Why? “For God hath received him” (v. 3). Notice three facts about this last phrase:

(1) The word “for” is from the Greek word gar which is a conjunction used to express cause.

(2) The word “received” in the original language carries the idea of a past, completed action.

(3) The antecedent to the “hirn” of this phrase is “him that eateth” in the previous phrase.

When we add these facts up, what must we conclude? God had already (at a past time) received “him” that ate meat in his practice, therefore the other brother had no right to judge or condemn him now. This passage declares right or lawful action as a necessary prerequisite for right or lawful fellowship.

In the next verse, Paul shows the same thing through the use of a sequential argument. First, an accepted premise, “To his own Lord he standeth or falleth.” In other words, it is God that has the ultimate right to judge regarding the brother’s acceptance or rejection in this matter of eating meat. Second, an emphatic declaration, “Yea, he shall be made to stand.” That is at the final judgmerit (where all of God’s judgments will ultimately be revealed), he will stand before God. This statement is the emphatic declaration that the man will be approved (future tense) in the final judgment with respect to his practice of eating meat just as God had “received” (past tense) him in that action as stated in verse 3. Third, a causal phrase, “For the Lord hath power to make him stand.” Again, gar is used indicating a reason for the validity of the preceding point. The Lord’s power should remind all men of his ability to make the acceptance of the meateater in his practice complete in the final judgment. No one had the authority to reverse the Lord’s judgment on the pratice so as to cause the meat-eater to be lost in eternity.

The practice of esteeming days is clearly identified as being of the same nature as the eating of meat – the practice of esteeming days and esteeming every day alike were both right in and of themselves. Each one was right as long as he carried out his practice “fully assured in his own mind” or without doubt (v. 5).

Can such be said of a practice that is not right in and of itself? If one was “fully assured in his own mind” that he could commit adultery, would God encourage him to do so? If one was “fully assured in his own mind” that he could steal, would an inspired writer countenance his practice? Certainly not I We must limit this advice to the category of things under consideration – those cases where two variant practices were both right or lawful in and of themselves. Those differing in practice both acted “unto the Lord” (v. 6). Such a statement could not be made if one or both of the practices were wrong or unlawful.

From this point, Paul urges those differing in practice not to judge one another and to remember that they face a final judgment of God (vv. 7-12). He also urges that they refrain from acting in such a way as to cause another to stumble (vv. 13-23). One can see how this could happen with the eating of meat from either of two possibilities.

First, the Jew who had been converted to Christ might have a problem eating the meat he had seen as unclean all of his life. Intellectually, he would know God now allowed such, but it takes time for the old feelings to be fully conquered so that no doubt remains. If a stronger brother exhorted him to eat while those doubts remained, sin would result (v. 23).

Second, the Gentile who had been converted to Christ might have a problem eating meat since the practice was so closely tied to the worship of an idol all of his life. Intellectually, he would know there is nothing to the idol, but old patterns of thought are not fully changed overnight. If a stronger brother encouraged him to eat meat while doubts remained, sin would result (v. 23).

Again we come back to emphasize the basis of this entire chapter. Brethren differed in thought and practice regarding matters that were right in and of themselves. True, the weaker brother did not understand that the practice of the stronger brother was right. However, the fact remains that both practices were right. Paul repeatedly emphasized the lawful nature of both differing practices. Upon that basis, both brethren were to receive each other, for God had already received them.

Some brethren today believe the point emphasized in this chapter is the individual nature of the practices discussed as opposed to collective action that involves the whole church in the practice. They believe Paul’s admonitions here would apply to matters that may be inherently wrong or sinful, but would not involve others in those actions. However, Paul makes his appeal to receive the meat-eater based on the fact that “God hath received him” (v. 3) and the emphatic statement that the meat eater “shall be made to stand” (v. 4). The individual nature of the action is not the basis of Paul’s appeal.

The view that we must receive even those who practice sin as long as it does not involve our direct participation has dangerous consequences. It would mean we must receive the fornicator and idolater who did not involve us in their practice even though Paul says we should not (1 Cor. 5:11). Should we receive the murderer as long as he did not involve us in pulling the trigger? Are we not to judge the musically talented brother who plays the piano or organ in worship with every denomination in town as long as he does not involve us in such? If we have a brother who, as a professor at the local university, openly teaches and supports the theory of evolution in his classes, must we receive him? If Romans 14 instructs of us to accept even the one with a sinful practice as long as it does not involve us, we must receive the brother without “arguing over his opinions” or “judging” him. Any position that demands such erroneous consequences must be rejected for we cannot harmonize such a position with other clear passages regarding the legitimate extent of our fellowship.

In the next article, we will examine various applications of this passage – past and present.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 8, pp. 240-242
April 19, 1990