Truth Magazine

By Bill Cavender

Theme of Romans 14: A caution against making external observances, and matters of opinions and personal conscience (“faith”), the occasion of strife and division in the church.

Introduction:

A. Romans 14 deals with a situation which is not ideal. (Other examples: Slavery [Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4: 1; Tit. 2:9-10; Philemon]; Marriage [1 Cor. 7:10-11,12-24; 1 Pet. 3:1-6]; Obedience to Civil Rulers [Rom. 13:1-7]). Would be much better if brethren obeyed 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1-4,14-15.

B. Opinions and conscientious scruples (“faith”) are always a hindrance to the work of Christ and to the church, never a help. No one converted nor strengthened by it.

C. No opinion nor matter of “personal faith” is necessary to salvation. The truth of God, plainly revealed, is necessary to salvation (Jn. 8:32; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22-25). All must believe the gospel, the truth, to be saved. It is sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Pet. 4:11, etc.).

D. Romans 14 is not talking about congregational work and worship. It is talking about personal relationships and attitudes between brethren’ of differing degrees of spiritual maturity and understanding, how each is to love the other.

E. This is a continual problem. Much strife, alienation, division and heartache is caused by varied opinions among brethren. Opinions exalted to matters of “personal faith” and “conscience” should be avoided as much as possible. We tend to think our conscience should be the standard for another person and we tend to think a person is “not sound” or “does not believe the truth” who does not believe our opinion.

F. No one is right all the time. No man’s opinion is always right. Any man can be mistaken, and often is. The law of love, to love our brethren and to love our neighbor, demands that we be careful to form opinions slowly, to not exalt opinions to matters of conscience (“faith”) in our own mind, and certainly not to bind our opinions and matters of personal conscience on others.

Body:

I. There are “strong” brethren and there are “weak” brethren (14:1; 15:1).

A. The “strong” are those who are taught and discerning and who do not form various opinions. These were especially Gentile brethren (vv. 2,5-6).

B. The “weak” are those who form opinions and matters of scruples (personal conscience or “faith”), especially Jewish brethren at that time, refraining from certain meats or foods, and observing certain days (vv. 2,5-6). Opinionated brethren are almost always in the negative, in the opposition and not in a positive attitude toward accomplishing the revealed word of God.

C. Often, so often, brethren nowadays confuse these terms. They think the “strong” brother is the one with the most opinions, most matters of conscience, and most vocal and tenacious in his ideas, and the “weak” brother is the one who had no such opinions and does not form matters of personal conscience. Being sound is not “sounding off,” arguing and fussing, and “standing for the truth” is not opinions, matters of personal conscience, and having our way about things.

D. Often, so often, this “weak” brother thinks he is the better Bible student, and knows and understands truth that the other brethren do not understand.

II. God will judge such matters; to him we stand or fall.

A. God receives either brother (v. 3).

B. God will judge his servants and can make him stand (even when he is condemned by his brother, v. 4).

C. We are the Lord’s servants, we give thanks to him, he died and arose for us, and before him we shall be judged adequately and accurately (vv. 4,5,7-9,10-12).

D. We are not to judge (condemn) one another in such matters (v. 13).

III. The truth of the matter: the “weak” brother was wrong in his opinions (vv. 14,20).

A. Yet, in his error and wrong opinion, this weak brother considered some things to be wrong and they were wrong to him, although he was mistaken and in themselves these matters were not wrong (v. 14).

B. The weak brother was not to violate his conscience, to “eat with offence” (v. 2).

C. The weak brother who had such scruples and conscientious convictions was to keep them to himself (v. 22), and observe their convictions quietly, without doubts (v. 22).

1. This is what most opinionated brethren will not do. They will not keep their opinions and scruples to themselves, as Paul said to do. They must voice them and try to bind them on others. This is sinful and results in strife among brethren.

2. This instruction (v. 22), shows Paul is not speaking of the revealed truth, the gospel, “the faith,” for we can never keep that to ourselves. We must preach and teach that, publicly and privately, in season and out of season.

D. All must do what we do in “faith,” believing that what we do is right to do. He that doubteth is condemned (damned). Whatsoever is not of “faith” is sin (v. 23).

IV. The “strong” brother In his attitude and dealings with his weak brother.

A. He is to receive him as a brother, but not to judge his scruples (v. 1).

B. He is not to put a stumblingblock or an occasion to sin in his way (vv. 13,21).

C. He is to walk charitably toward him; do not grieve him with your liberty and understanding, and do not destroy him, for Christ died for him (v. 15).

D. Do not let your liberty and privilege be evil spoken of by causing him to do that which violates his conscience (v. 16).

E. Do not destroy the work of God in saving souls by food, etc. (v. 20).

Conclusion:

1. There are greater considerations than food, days, opinions, personal convictions, etc. The kingdom of God is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (v. 17).

2. We are not to please ourselves, to have our own way, to push our opinions and scruples upon others. Even Jesus pleased not himself (15:1-3).

3. These examples, such as Jesus, are given that we might learn patience in such matters, that we might be comforted in doing the Scriptures, and might have hope (15:4).

4. Brethren should realize that we must live in love and in peace with each other, each man esteeming others better than self (Phil. 2:1-4,14-15), and that we must not destroy one another with opinions, somebody’s personal conscience, and by bickering and fussing and striving over such matters. May God help us to see this and to avoid this kind of conduct, but rather to love one another and put the cause of Christ above all else.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 234-235
April 20, 1989

By Luther W. Martin

Israel of old was called out of Egypt by the God of heaven. He was their One God, their Ruler, as well as the Creator of the universe. Their government was a theocracy, a rule of God.

Egypt represented a state of sin, a condition of enslavement, as far as the children of Israel were concerned. Thus, the predicament in which the Jews found themselves, was one of being captives in a hostile land.

But, the God of heaven, who had spoken to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel), had promised that he would make of them a great nation, and that he would provide for them a productive land, one that “flowed with milk and honey” (a figurative expression of a land in which they would dwell and prosper).

According to Joshua, the successor to Moses, as a leader of the children of Israel, all of God’s promises to their fathers had been kept and fulfilled by the God of heaven.

So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which he had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it.

The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that he had sworn to their fathers. And not a man-of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass (Josh. 21:43-45).

Joshua gives plain evidence that God kept his promises to Israel. But there were conditions attached to God’s promises: Israel was to remain faithful and obedient to God. Instead, Israel became as “a gadding bride”; an unfaithful spouse. Consequently, Israel lost the land and blessings that God had formerly promised. There was captivity by the Assyrians and later by the Babylonians. Then finally, while Daniel was a captive in Babylon, he interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) wherein Daniel identified the King of Babylon as the “Head of Gold”; then a lesser kingdom would arise; the Medo-Persian Kingdom, portrayed as the “breast and arms of silver”; which prevailed from 538 B.C. to 330 B.C. Next, the image was described as having “belly and thighs of bronze,” in reference to the Grecian Kingdom of Alexander the Great, which would succeed the Medes and the Persians. The Kingdom of Greece as a world empire prevailed from 330 B.C. until 323 B.C., only seven years.

The final world kingdom typified by Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-image, was that of Rome, described as “legs of iron, with feet of iron and clay, mixed.” Ten lesser kingdoms (representing the toes of the image), and being divisions of the Roman Empire, included: (1) Franks, (2) Ostro-Goths, (3) Visi-Goths, (4) Vandals, (5) Burgundians, (6) Saxons, (7) Suevi, (8) Gepicli, (9) Lombards, and (10) the Eastern Empire.

And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the day, the silver, and the gold – the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure (Dan. 2:44-45).

In view of the “checkered” history of the Jewish people, it is not surprising that the very last question asked of Jesus by his disciples was: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom of Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

In ancient times, God had set up Judges to rule or be his representatives to his people. But the Jews wanted to have a king like the Gentiles surrounding them. They cried: “Give us a King! Give us a King!” So, the God of heaven gave them Saul, David and Solomon. But after Solomon’s reign, chat nation split into two kingdoms. Ten tribes in the north comprised Israel, while two tribes in the south were known as Judah. Israel deteriorated first, becoming idolatrous. Later, Judah did the same; although Judah never became quite as sinful and rebellious as Israel had become.

Therefore, it is quite obvious, as to why the Jewish people were yearning for a “kingdom” once more.

Matthew’s Expression: “Kingdom of Heaven”

Of the four biographical books of Christ’s life, only Matthew uses the term “Kingdom of Heaven.” It is not used by Mark, Luke or John. Inasmuch as Matthew’s biography was written by a Jew for the Jews . . . to convince them of the divinity of Christ, I suggest that Inspiration chose this expression in an effort to outline to the Jews, the nature of this new Kingdom that the God of Heaven, through the sacrifice of his Son, was going to establish. Christ came into the world to “seek and save the lost” (Lk. 19:10).

(1) A kingdom has a kingl Christ became and is that Kingl He is the lawgiver for his kingdoml No one else has that authorityl Christ, the King of Salem, the Prince of Peace, has all authority, both in heaven and on earthl This is spiritual authority . . . heavenly decrees (Matt. 28:18).

(2) A kingdom has territorial boundariesl Christ’s kingdom, his “called-out citizens,” are found in every nationl His kingdom has penetrated and permeated all other kingdoms (nations) of the world

(3) A kingdom has a center of government! It may be a palace, or a capitol city. In any event, the seat of goverment authority is indicated; perhaps by a “throne.” Christ is seated at the right hand of God in heaven; reigning, ruling over the citizens in his kingdom (see Acts 2:22-29).

(4) A kingdom also has tenurel The kingdoms of men or nations of men, are temporary. They rise and fail I But the kingdom of Christ shall continue as long as time shall last (see 1 Cor. 15:20-28).

“Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God”?

Scholars tell us that these two expressions refer to one and the same Kingdom! But Matthew was the one biographical writer who sought to impress his own people, the Jews, with the spiritual or heavenly aspect of Christ’s Kingdom!

Christ reminded Peter, as the Apostle struck off Malchus’ ear with his sword: “My kingdom is not of this worldl If it were, then would My servants right!” (Jn. 18:10,36)

John the Immerser began his preaching with the message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:2)

Jesus began his preaching, by announcing: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17).

The twelve were cautioned not to go into the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter a city of the Samaritans, but in going to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, they were to announce: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 10:5-7)

John the Immerser did not live to see the kingdom established on Pentecost. But Jesus taught: “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater that John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11).

Conclusion

Matthew used the expression “Kingdom of Heaven” thirty-one times. But with Mark writing to convince the Romans of the divinity of Christ; with Luke writing to convince the Greeks of Christ’s divinity; and John writing his “spiritual” gospel . . . not one of the other gospel writers used the expression “Kingdom of Heaven.” It therefore appears that Matthew’s message to the Jews must have been designed to impress upon them the purpose, nature and substance of Christ’s heavenly kingdom; designed to call out a people from earth’s carnality and prepare this community, congregation, assembly, etc., to become spiritual Israel, with the hope and goal of a heavenly home forevermore.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 202-203
April 6, 1989

By Randy Reynolds

Often times people (in general) allow mishaps, disasters, death, sickness and trials and tribulations, etc., to be their time for self-pity. “Oh pity me,” they exclaim, as if to infer that they were the only ones on whom perilous times had ever fallen. So they set out to blame God for all that has happened. Yes, this attitude does exist and it exists among a great many people, but it should not, and cannot be the demeanor of a Christian. A Christian must rise above the lowly walk in darkness and those of the world and not allow perilous times to set him at variance with God Almighty. A Christian must continue to practice truth and not allow a sinful attitude to exist.

If any would have had a strong case for having a right to seek “self-pity,” it would have been the apostle Paul and Silas. But that was not the case at all. No, instead of the self-pity routine, seemingly Paul and Silas sought to bring glory and honor to God even when situations and conditions were less than favorable.

Notice one particular example in the New Testament Scriptures (see Acts 16:16-39). Do you recall in this reading in Acts how Paul, after deliberating for many days, had commanded the demon spirit out of the certain slave girl (vv. 16-18)? Ana because of this Paul and Silas were brought before the authorities and then the chief magistrates, the ones in supreme power in this Roman colony (vv. 19,20). Then without being allowed a defense and being accused of “false charges” (v. 21), their robes were torn, they were beaten with rods and thrown into an inner (maximum security) prison. And if this was not enough punishment they fastened their feet in the stocks (vv. 23,24).

What a fine opportunity this would have been for Paul and Silas sitting in a dark dungeon with their backs bleeding from the scourge and their feet locked in the stocks, to blame God. Or if they wouldn’t blame God, don’t you think that they would at least be entitled to cry out for the pity of all those who could hear them and then just sit there and feel sorry for themselves?

That is not what Paul and Silas chose to do at all. (Be thankful for their example of courage and strength.) Instead they decided to go to God in prayer and then sing to him songs of praise (v. 25). Not only did this comfort Paul and Silas, it pleased God and led the way to the eventual baptizing of the jailer and all of his house (v. 32).

A Lesson for Us Today

In this text there is a lesson for the Christian of every era. And that lesson is one of “making the best of it. ” Make the best of all situations, instead of falsely accusing God and then worrying and pouting (feeling sorry for oneself). Make the best of it.

We don’t stand alone. Peter says in 1 Peter 5:6,7 that we should, after humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God, cast all of our anxiety upon him because he cares for us. And after telling us in vv. 8 and 9 to resist our adversary the devil, he adds these very beautiful words in v. 10: “And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.”

Paul also adds in Philippians 4:6,7 – “Be anxious for nothing but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpassed all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

As Christians, we must “practice the truth” (1 Jn. 1:5b) and avoid giving Satan opportunities (Eph. 5:27). We should live every word and deed of our life so as to bring glory and honor to God Almighty. Our profit lies in seeking God and that eternal home in heaven; we just cannot allow ourselves to be burdened by the cares of this present world we live in.

We don’t stand alone. For Paul says in Romans 8:35-39, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, ‘For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long: We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angel, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Certainly each and everyone of us must realize that his strength comes from God Almighty. We must never forsake him; we must continue to press on. Let us make the best of it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, p. 206
April 6, 1989

By Louis J. Sharp

Pluralism seems to be the accepted standard of our nation, except for Christians! In this rejection of Christians, we may detect another step our nation has taken in the direction of ancient Rome. Long ago, barriers were crossed with reference to high taxation, rampant divorce, and unrestrained immorality. All these things contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Pluralism is: ” 1. The quality or condition of being plural, or of existing in more than one part or form. . . 3. (a) the existence within a nation or society of groups distinctive in ethnic origin, cultural patterns, religions, or the like (b) a policy favoring the preservation of such groups within a given nation or society” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1986; p. 1097).

In a mixed society, such as we live in, pluralism is an important element within the framework of that society. Yet, as stated in Perspective (Vol. XL, Number 15, July 20, 1988):

“In the name of ‘pluralism’ -pluralism is being destroyed! In its essence, pluralism suggests diversity as a reality. It is the acceptance of diversity – tolerance of and respect for those who differ. Authentic pluralism honors distinctions. It does not try to eliminate them! Contemporary pluralism is tolerant of everything . . . except Jesus Christ! In the name of pluralism, followers of Christ are expected to show tolerance and respect for those of different persuasion. And they should! Not to do so contradicts their faith. Contrarily – in the name of pluralism, they are expected to refrain from references to Jesus Christ in public gatherings, as for example – in public prayer. Their prayer is to be ‘ecumenical’ . . . which simply means they are forbidden to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Interesting that in the name of pluralism, the one exception, the one exclusion is the name of Jesus Christ. Required even by many who profess to be ‘Christian.'”

This is both an interesting and frightening statement. Yet, the words of the author appear to be very accurate. It is the Christian religion, and only the Christian religion, that is singled out for rejection. Judaism continues unshackled. Even Islam and other eastern religions are not confronted with the vicious attacks that are made against Christianity.

The author of the article in Perspective further states:

“Not really a new phenomenon: ‘And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus’ (Acts 4:18).

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved’ Acts 4:12).”

Thus, he points to the persecution that came against the disciples in the first century. Our freedoms are being threatened today as never before. Our hard-won freedoms may be in greater jeopardy then most of us realize. Our prayer is that we may be able to preserve them for our children, our grandchildren, and all future posterity.

Pray for the God of heaven to give us strength to stand in time of persecution, if indeed it does come to us. Christians are the real minority of America!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, p. 205
April 6, 1989