Conscience: How to Welcome a Weak Brother, Part 1-3, Complete Edition

By John Piper

Each One Should Be Fully Convinced in His Own Mind

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Today we deal with verses 5-9 of Romans 14. You may remember that one of the most striking things about verses 1-4 was how Paul used huge theological truths to minimize little church squabbles. The issue in verse 2 was “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” So there are tensions between meat eaters and vegetarians. The issue probably was not nutrition or animal love, but whether meat was associated with sinful behavior like sacrifices. At any rate some Christians felt free to eat the meat (Paul calls them the strong), and some did not (Paul calls them the weak). And his main point was negatively (verse 3), “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.” And positively (verse 1), be accepting and welcoming to each other in spite of such matters. That was the situation and the exhortation.

Huge Theological Truths to Provide the Right Framework for Disagreements

Now admittedly this is not a very big deal. Good grief! Eating meat or not! But such things have led to bitter feelings, and break down of relationships, and split churches and terrible disrepute coming on the name of Christ. So in itself the issue is small. But what it can become, without a right framework of thinking, is terrible. So Paul uses huge theological truths to give that right framework. That’s what this whole chapter is about.

Paul pulled out three big truths to handle this little problem. 1) In verse 3b he says that we should not pass judgment on a brother in such things “for God has welcomed him.” The very meaning of being a Christian is justification by faith. God has justified the brother by faith. He stands righteous and accepted by God. Beware lest you treat him any other way. 2) In verse 4a he says, “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.” So his second big truth is that your brother will give an account for his life before his own Master, and it isn’t you. Judgment is coming. Better take heed to yourself. 3) In verse 4b Paul expresses his strong view of the perseverance of the saints—the disagreeing and imperfect saints—we will be made to stand in the judgment. “And he will be upheld [literally: be stood (by God)], for the Lord is able to make him stand.” The future of believers is not up for grabs. God will keep us and make us stand at the last day.

All of those huge theological truths are brought out by Paul to give a framework for handling our little differences over non-essentials that can do such big damage without a God-centered way of thinking.

Now today in verses 5-9 Paul does the same thing. He brings up minor differences, tells us to make up our minds (even if we differ) and then puts the whole minor thing in a massive context of life and death. You start to get the idea that Paul’s solution to being ruined by small things is to get the really big things front and center.

Disagreements About Certain Days

Verse 5: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike.” That’s the first issue. Disagreement about how to think about and what to do on certain days. My plan is to address next week the relation of this verse to the issue of Sabbath-keeping and the Lord’s Day. For now let’s just see it as a broad reference to celebrations people disagree about.

I have known Christian people who rejected the celebration of Christmas and Easter and all birthdays for religious reasons. Paul had to deal with a whole range of such issues in the Galatian and Colossian churches. Galatians 4:10-11, “You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.” Colossians 2:16-17, “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” So the first issue he brings up today is what to do about disagreements in the church over what to think about certain days and what to do on those days.

Disagreements About Certain Foods

The other issue he brings up is the old one of eating certain things or not. You see it in verse 6b: “The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Each One Should Be Fully Convinced in His Own Mind

So in this text we have two kinds of disagreements among Christians: What to think about certain days, and whether to eat certain foods. What is Paul’s counsel? In verses 1-4 his counsel was, Don’t despise each other and don’t judge each other. God has received the brother, the Lord will be his judge not you, and God will make the brother stand. Here he says something different. He says (verse 5b), “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” This is remarkable because it seems to make the problem worse not better. Let’s be sure we see it. Verse 5: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

This is not what I would have expected. He is not saying as a kind of concession, Each one can have his own conviction. He is saying, Each one should have his own conviction. It’s a command, not a permission: “Let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind” (hekastos en tö idiö voi plërophoreisthö). It’s the same word used in Romans 4:21 where it says that Abraham “grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced (plërophorëtheis) that God was able to do what he had promised.” It’s the same idea that we find in Romans 14:23, “Whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” In other words, minor matters do not call for mushy faith or flimsy convictions. They call for clear faith and full conviction.

Doesn’t This Make the Problem Worse, Not Better?

Now the reason this is not what I expected is that this seems to make the problem worse not better. Here you have groups in the church disagreeing over what days are sacred and what do on those days, and disagreeing over what foods should not be eaten. And their feelings are strong about this, and they are starting to say things and do things relationally that are destructive to true fellowship (despising, judging, not accepting), and Paul comes along and instead of saying, “Lighten up, these things are minor and don’t merit strong convictions,” he says, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” That looks to me at first like trying to put out a fire with a bucket of gasoline: “OK all you squabblers over less important issues, let’s all get a firm conviction! No wafflers here. No fence-sitters. No shilly-shallying. Everybody come to a clear conviction! Everybody take a stand.”

Therefore I conclude from what Paul says that the way for disagreeing Christians to get along with each other in a truth-honoring, Christ-exalting way is not to breed indecisiveness on minor issues. The answer to judgmentalism and despising others and not accepting others is not vacillation, wavering, indecisiveness, and uncertainty about what to do. That might create a kind of peace. People without opinions tend to be able to get along pretty well. But evidently Paul does not believe the solution to Christian disagreement is for all of us to become wishy-washy—even on the minor issues! When Paul weighs the risks of the mindset that can’t come to a conviction and stand for it, versus the risks of the mindset that has convictions on all minor matters, he chooses the second set of risks. In fact, he advocates for the second set of risks: “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.”

So what is Paul’s remedy for the tensions created by strong-minded Christians who have firm but differing convictions about non-essential matters? How does Paul keep firm convictions about minor matters from becoming divisive? If he’s not going to solve the problem of division by telling us to lighten up, what is his solution?

“Each One Should Be Fully Convinced . . .” of What?

The first part of the answer comes from clarifying what we are “full convinced” of. “Each one should be fully convinced . . .” of what? I think the answer is this: I am fully convinced that what I am committed to is 1) not sinful, 2) honoring to Christ, and 3) the best way I can think of for me to act in this situation. That’s part of the solution because Paul is not saying that we must be fully convinced that our way is the only to honor God or the only way to avoid sin. It’s the best way we can see now for us to act.

Paul Returns to the Big Truths—In Three Steps

But that’s only part of the answer because, even though we may try to be theoretically open to other possible ways of behaving than the one we have chosen on this matter, it is really hard not to see other options as seriously defective and then begin to judge or despise or separate. So what Paul does mainly to answer this question is go again to the huge truths of the glory of God, life and death, and crucifixion and resurrection. Let’s watch how he does this in three steps. Let this have the effect God intends: to help you have firm convictions while believing that on minor matters Christ can and will get glory form those who differ from you.

Step 1: True Christians on Both Sides of These Issues Are Glorifying God in What They Do

First, in verse 6 Paul simply makes the radical claim that true Christians on both sides of these issues are glorifying God in what they do: “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Now this is not easy for us to believe. We have come to our full conviction by asking, What will honor the Lord in this situation? And we have decided: Not to drink this will. Or not to eat this will. Or not to do that or wear that or go there will. And it is simply not easy for us to believe that someone who chooses the very opposite behavior that we have chosen can do it “for the honor of the Lord” and that Jesus will be magnified in their behavior.

Of course, you can’t do everything to the glory of God. You can’t murder to the glory of God or steal to the glory of God or commit adultery to the glory of God or be arrogant to the glory of God or covet to the glory of God. But there are a hundred things we can disagree on in which both ways can be done to the glory of God. So Paul’s first step in his answer is to make the radical assertion that Christians who disagree on non-essential things can both do opposite things to the glory of God. They can eat and they can abstain to the glory of God. They can eat with thanksgiving to God for what they are eating. They can abstain from eating with thanksgiving that God is able to satisfy them, even though they don’t eat.

Step 2: Things as Opposite as Eating/Not Eating and Death/Life Can Both Honor the Lord

Then, in his second step, Paul does something surprising as he tries to help us believe what seems so hard to believe—namely, that things as opposite as eating and not eating can both honor the Lord. He brings up life and death. Verse 7-8a: “For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord.” Why does he bring up life and death like this? I think it’s because life and death are the ultimate opposites of eating and not-eating.

If you are alive you have a body that can enjoy the pleasures of life (food, drink, exercise, sex, cool fall air). But if you are dead, your body is in the grave and you don’t eat or drink or exercise or have sex or feel the cool fall air. Death (for a time, until the resurrection) is the ultimate abstaining from what the world offers. So Paul reaches for the ultimate: Life and death. And he says that both, not just one, but both, are experienced by believers “to the Lord.” That is, to the glory of the Lord. To show the infinite value of the Lord. And the point is: If life and death—as radically different, even opposite, as they are—can both display the great worth of Christ, then Christ can get glory from your little differences over meat and days. And he will.

Step 3: Through the Resurrection of Christ, Both the Living and the Dead Can Show the Infinite Value of His Lordship

Then, in his third step, Paul gives the deepest foundation for this confidence that he has. He says in verses 8b-9, “So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” When someone asks, How can a person who is alive with a body that can enjoy all this world’s good things and give thanks to God, and a person who is dead and whose body is in the grave with no ability to eat or drink or taste—how can these two radically different relationships to the world both display the infinite worth of Christ? Paul answers: Christ died and rose again from the dead to destroy the power of death and make the living and the dead his own possession. Therefore, the living lives to his glory, and the dead live to his glory. The living display his worth by how they use his creation for his glory, and the dead display his worth by how they rejoice in the superior worth of Christ over all his gifts of creation.

Summary

So here’s the sum of the matter: Paul is dealing with disagreements over non-essential matters like days and food. Instead of saying, “Don’t sweat the small stuff,” or “Lighten up,” he says, “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” He believes people with conviction and decisiveness are better risks than the other kind.

So how does he handle the risk of conflict when lots of people are “fully convinced” that their way is not sinful, and honors God, and is the best way they can see for themselves in this situation? He boldly asserts that opposite behaviors—eating and not eating—can both show the worth of Christ. To support that radical statement he says its true of the ultimate condition of opposites: life and death. And to support that radical statement he goes to the greatest event in history: “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.”

The living display the infinite worth of his lordship by valuing him in all his good gifts. The dead display the infinite value of his lordship by valuing him above all his gifts when they are taken away.

Therefore, I do not say to you, “Lighten up.” Or, “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” Rather I say, “Stand in awe of the risen Christ who will get his glory from the living and from the dead and from the eaters and the abstainers and from the day-keepers and the non-day-keepers. Stand in awe of Jesus Christ. And whatever you do, whether you eat or whether you drink, do all to the glory of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Purified to Serve the Living God

Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3 And behind the second veil, there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4 having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant. 5 And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 Now when these things have been thus prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle, performing the divine worship, 7 but into the second only the high priest enters, once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, 9 which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. 11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

This is Old and Strange and Foreign to Me

It's almost inevitable that people who live in the modern world of computers and jets and television and antibiotics will read these verses with a sense of tremendous foreignness. That is not my world, we feel, even if we don't say it. What should we do about that sense?

When you read about something old and strange and culturally foreign to your present world, you have three choices (at least) in how you can deal with the difference and the distance you feel from this oldness and strangeness:

1) You can say, "The world of this text is so old and so foreign and so strange—with its tents and altars and animal sacrifices and ceremonial defilements and washings—that they have no relevance for my life today at all. So I will ignore them and deal with more contemporary things."

2) Or you can say, "Well, the truths that really matter in life are not historical truths, but timeless truths above history, and so in every generation these truths get expressed in some way or another in the world. I will look for some of these timeless truths in these old strange days of priests and ritual and sacrifice and ceremonial defilement. Perhaps my life will be enriched in some way by connecting with the eternal realm through these old practices.

3) Or you can say, "I believe that God governs history and is progressively revealing himself to the world by the way he guides history from one period to the next. Yes, old periods of God's design in history are strange and foreign, but, no, they are not irrelevant. Each successive period helps interpret the next and sheds light on what God is doing in the present. And, yes, there are eternal truths that we can learn from old and strange periods of history, but, no, this is not all that God is doing. History is not just an unreal shadow of heaven. God himself comes into history and does things. And we cannot just stand back and try to see symbols of eternal truths; we have to become a part of what God is doing in history if we would be saved and live with him forever."

Why it is Relevant, Though Foreign to Us

Let me show you from these verses why I think option 3 is the way we should respond to the strangeness and foreignness of this text. Verses 1-7 set up what this writer wants us to see. They describe the old period of history and the way the people of God worshipped in it. Verse 1: there was an "earthly sanctuary." Verse 2: this sanctuary or tabernacle had an outer part, called "the holy place," with lampstand and table and bread. Verses 3-5: behind that was the Holy of Holies with an altar and chest with sacred relics and carved cherubim above the altar. Verse 6 describes the priests entering the outer tent continually, and verse 7 describes the high priest entering the Holy of Holies only once a year to make atonement for the people. In other words, in this early, strange, foreign period of history, the way to God was very limited. His presence was sealed off behind the outer tent. He could only be approached in atonement once a year, and only the high priest could go, and he had to go with blood, including blood for his own sins.

Now when we get to verse 8, the writer starts his interpretation of this old period of history with its strange, foreign ways. He says, "The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed, while the outer tabernacle is still standing, (9) which is a symbol for the present time." Here comes the tremendously important clue how he wants us to relate to this strange and distant period of history. He says that the outer tabernacle is symbolic of "the present time" (verse 9a).

In other words, the ritual of this tent and the way it stands between the worshipper and God's presence are characteristic of "the present time." Notice: he is not saying that this old, strange, foreign ritual is irrelevant. And he is not saying that history is unimportant and all that matters is finding eternal truths in the symbolism of it all. He says this tent and these furnishings and this priestly ritual have directly to do with time—with a period of history. He calls it, "the present time." This tent is "a symbol for the present time" (verse 9a).

"The Present Time"

But what is "the present time" that he has in mind? And what does it have to do with us in our present time?

Let's keep reading and listen to him explain what time he means and how the times were changing, even as he wrote. Verse 9b: "Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, 10 since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." Here is another reference to time and the movement of God in history.

Let's compare the reference in verse 9a to the reference in verse 10b. In verse 9a he says that the outer tent with its furnishings and ministry, separating the people from the Holy of Holies and the presence of God was symbolic of "the present time." Then he said in verses 9b and 10 that all these external rituals that relate to food and drink and washings are valid only "until the time of reformation" (= "the setting straight", "the new order"). So the question is: when does that transition happen in history? When does "the present time," in verse 9, give way to "the reformation" or the "new order" in verse 10?

The whole point of this book of Hebrews is to say that the coming of Christ, the Son of God, into the world is the ending of "the present time" of the old, strange, foreign way of relating to God, and the beginning of "the reformation" where Christ himself replaces the high priest and the temple and the blood of the animals and the food and drink rituals. That's the point of the book of Hebrews.

The way to think about the old and strange and foreign is not to say it's irrelevant, or to say that it's just a shadow of eternal truths, but rather to say, that in that old period of history, under God's sovereign design, everything was pointing to a new period of history that began with Jesus, and in which we live. And the old period has much light to shed on the meaning of the new period.

Why did he call the old, strange, foreign period of history "this present time" if he lived after the death and resurrection of Jesus? The answer is given, I think, in Hebrews 8:13 which really introduces this whole section: "When He said [referring to God's voice in Jeremiah 31:31], 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." Do you see where he sees himself? He sees himself in the time of transition from old to new. The old system of relating to God through ritual and sacrifice and priest and tabernacle "is becoming obsolete and is ready to disappear. And the new order, the "reformation" has been inaugurated in Christ and is replacing the old. Very soon the temple in Jerusalem would be utterly destroyed and the entire priestly, sacrificial system would be finished, to this day.

So you and I live in this new period, "the reformation," as he calls it. Now why is that important? Why is that relevant to us in our computerized, jet-speed age of antibiotics and secular solutions to everything?

How Can People with Stained Consciences Draw Near to God?

It's relevant because there's one thing that modern life and scientific progress and psychological therapies and medical discoveries have not made the slightest advance in solving. And that is, What is God's work in this "time of reformation" and this text all about? It is all about how people with stained consciences can draw near to God.

Isn't it remarkable that when we spend an evening isolated in front of our computer: addicted, as it were, to work or pornography or video games, the issue, at the end of it all, is not the wonders of technology, or science; the issue is: how can I come to God when I feel so dirty, and how can I come to my wife and children with transparent love, when my conscience is so defiled? (And if you're not into computers, pick your own sin—TV soaps, romance novels, stock market pages, spirit-numbing music, etc.).

Isn't it remarkable that the basic problems of life never change. The circumstances change, but the basic problems don't change. We are humans, and we have consciences that witness to our sinfulness with testimonies of real guilt. And we know that what keeps us away from God is not dirty hands or soiled clothes or distance from an altar or a priest. What keeps us from God is real sin echoing in a condemning conscience.

God Has Solved that Problem

Now that is why the new time period—where we live—is relevant. This is what the new period is about: God has done something in history—not in some timeless realm of ideas—that solves the deepest problem we have in the modern world. The old period—the old covenant—only pointed to the solution, but didn't solve the problem. Watch for the differences between the old "present time" and "the time of reformation" as you read verses 11-14.

But when Christ appeared [that's the inauguration of the "time of the reformation" and the ending of "the present time"] as a high priest of the good things to come [which have now indeed come through his death and resurrection], He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all [the true tabernacle in heaven], having obtained eternal redemption [not a yearly one]. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh [that is, ceremonial cleansing, but not real moral, spiritual cleansing], how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

In the old period of history, the high priest went into the Holy of Holies once a year, taking the blood of animals (verse 7). Why did he have to do that? Because the blood stood for the death of an animal and the death was in the place of the death of the priest and the people. God counted the blood of the animal as sufficient for cleansing the flesh, the ceremonial uncleanness.

But what about the guilty conscience of the priest and the people? No animal blood could cleanse that. They knew it (see Isaiah 53 and Psalm 51). And we know it. So in "the time of reformation" a new high priest comes—Jesus the Son of God—with a better sacrifice, the sacrifice of himself. Verse 14 says that the whole Trinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—were involved. "Through the eternal Spirit [the Holy Spirit] he offered himself [the Son] without blemish to God [the Father]." The result is that all the sins of his people in the Old Covenant were covered by the blood of Jesus. The animal sacrifices foreshadowed the final sacrifice of God's Son, and the death of the Son reaches back to cover all the sins of God's people in the old time period, and forward to cover all the sins of God's people in the new time period.

The Problem is the Same for Ancient People and Modern People

So here we are in the modern age, the age of science, space travel—E-mail, heart transplants, instant replays, beepers, 911—and our problem is fundamentally the same as always: our consciences condemn us and make us feel unacceptable to God. We are alienated from God. We don't feel good enough to come to him. And no matter how distorted our consciences are, that much is true: we are not good enough to come to him.

We can cut ourselves, or throw our children in the sacred river, or give a million dollars to the United Way, or serve in a soup kitchen at Thanksgiving, or a hundred forms of penance and self-injury, and the result will be the same: the stain remains and death terrifies. We know that our conscience is defiled—not with external things like touching a corpse, a dirty diaper, or a piece of pork. Jesus said it is what comes out of a man that defiles, not what goes in (Mark 7:15-23). We are defiled by attitudes like pride and self-pity and bitterness and lust and envy and jealousy and covetousness and apathy and fear. Verse 14 says that these are "dead works"—that is, they have no spiritual life in them. They don't come from new life; they come from death and they lead to death. That is why they make us feel hopeless in our consciences.

The Only Answer

The only answer in this modern age, as in every other age is the blood of Christ. When your conscience rises up and condemns you, where will you turn? Hebrew 9:14 gives you the answer: turn to Christ. Turn to the blood of Christ. Turn to the only cleansing agent in the universe that can give you relief in life and peace in death.

How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I urge you this morning, turn to Christ, turn right now to Christ and receive the free gift that he bought at infinite price: the gift of perfect forgiveness and cleansing.

How to Welcome a Weak Brother

Today we enter the third chapter of application after the great doctrinal chapters of Romans 1-11. We begin Romans 14 and clearly the theme remains the same as in chapters 12 and 13: love your neighbor as you love yourself. But the specific issue in this chapter is how a church can hold together when some members are so different from each other. The way Paul sums up that difference is by saying that some have weak faith and some have strong faith.

You see the reference to this difference in verse 1: “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.” And then you see it again in Romans 15:1: “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak.” And then you see another parallel between the beginning of chapter 14 and the beginning of chapter 15. You see the command to “welcome” each other in Romans 14:1 (“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him”); and you see it again in Romans 15:7 (“Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God”). So the entire chapter plus part of chapter 15 (up through verse 13) is dealing with the danger of divisions in the church that can happen because of the differences between the weak and the strong.

So it’s tremendously important that we understand what it means to be weak and strong. It’s probably not exactly what you think it is. At least I am surprised by some of what I see there. So let’s start by asking what it means to be weak in faith and strong in faith. Then let’s see how Paul says we should treat each other when we have these differences. Then we will look at the amazing foundations Paul gives for this kind of loving treatment.

1. What Does It Mean to Be Weak in Faith?

The Weak Brothers Avoid Meat and Wine

Notice first that those who are weak in faith don’t eat meat and don’t drink wine. Verse 2: “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” The issue here is meat, as you can see in verse 21 where wine is added to the list: “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” So Paul is saying to the strong in faith: there are times when you deny yourself meat and wine for the sake of the weak who don’t eat meat or drink wine. So that’s the first thing we see about the weak and the strong. The weak avoid meat and wine, and the strong are free to eat and drink anything.

The Weak Brothers’ Practice Is Not Sin, But God-Exalting Behavior

Second, the avoidance of meat and wine—the practice of the weak—is not sin, but is God-exalting behavior. The first evidence for this is that verse 1 says they are acting in “weak faith” not no-faith. The practices of the weak are faith-driven practices. Paul says in verse 23b, “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” But he does not accuse the weak of sinning. They are acting from faith. Weak faith. And faith is a God-centered, God-exalting frame of heart.

The other evidence that the abstinence of the weak is God-exalting behavior is found in verse 6: “The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” Notice how much credit Paul gives to the weak brother who will not eat meat or drink wine. “The one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God (kai ho më ethiön kuriö ouk esthiei kai eucharistei tö theö). His behavior is God-directed (to the end) and he feels deeply thankful, not resentful, as he abstains. So this weak brother is acting on faith and he is God-centered and he is overflowing with thanks to God. Is this what you think of when you think of weak?

The Weak Brothers Are Not Legalists

The third thing to say about the weak brother’s abstinence from meat and wine is that it is not because he believes this behavior is the way he gets justified or the way he secures his acceptance with God. This weak brother is not like the Judaizers in Galatia who thought that circumcision was essential to securing acceptance with God (Galatians 5:1-3). We know this because Paul was furious with this false gospel in Galatians (Galatians 1:6-9), but he gives no criticism of these weak brothers like that. They are not legalists. They do not think their abstinence earns God’s acceptance or contributes to their justification.

The Weak Brothers Regard Meat and Wine as “Unclean” or “Common”

One more thing we see in this abstinence of the weak from meat and wine, namely, that they regard meat and wine in some sense as “unclean” or “common.” Verse 14: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinon) in itself, but it is unclean (koinon) for anyone who thinks it unclean (koinon).” Paul wouldn’t have said this if it were irrelevant to the situation. This was the view of the weak: meat and wine are in some sense “unclean.”

2. Why Does Paul Call Them Weak?

So the question now is: What’s weak about this abstinence from meat and wine? Why does Paul call it weak? It’s based on faith. It’s God-exalting. It’s expressing gratitude to God, not self-sufficiency. It’s not legalistic. So how is it weak? And I hope you are asking: am I in the weak category or the strong category? Or maybe I don’t qualify for either. And I hope you are feeling that Paul is pretty impressed with the weak. He’s thankful for them. He is practicing what he is preaching. Welcome the weak (v. 1). Don’t despise the weak (v. 3).

So what is their weakness? I think the answer is the same as the answer to the question why they view meat and wine as “unclean.” If we could understand that, I think we would see why Paul calls them weak. My answer to this question is this: The weak regard meat and wine as unclean because they believe eating meat and drinking wine will not glorify God as much as abstaining will. There is something about meat and wine that makes eating it and drinking it less honoring to God than abstaining.

I base this on the end of verse 6 where it says that “the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” In other words, the weak man is making his choices rightly on the basis of what he believes will most honor the Lord and express thanks to the Lord. They are good, well-motivated choices given his convictions about meat and wine. He must believe that those who eat meat and drink wine don’t honor the Lord as much as they would if they abstained. Why they believed this about the meat and wine, Paul doesn’t say explicitly.

What’s crucial to know is that Paul surely thought they were wrong in this conviction. The conviction that there is something about meat and wine that makes abstinence more honoring to God than eating and drinking was a mistake. They lacked the knowledge that would undergird and liberate their faith. They could not trust God for the holy joy of eating meat or drinking wine because they lacked some crucial knowledge. They knew God, they loved God, they trusted God. But they did not understand something that would have strengthened their faith in these particular ways.

What knowledge did they lack? Paul makes the explicit connection between lack of knowledge and weakness in 1 Corinthians 8:6-7. He’s dealing with a situation similar, though not the same, to the one in Rome. He says, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” So there is the explicit connection between lack of knowledge and weakness. “Not all possess this knowledge”—namely, the knowledge that all creation is from God and through Christ and for God. And lacking this knowledge, eating and drinking certain things are viewed in themselves as less honoring to God.

Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 10:25, “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For ‘the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.’” In other words, the fullness of faith to eat what you will to the glory of God is based on the fullness of knowledge that “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” The weak believer lacks this knowledge—and perhaps other knowledge as well—and therefore their faith is limited in its exercise. They are weak in faith.

The strong, on the other hand, have a more full understanding of God and his relation to the world, and are freed by this truth to embrace more of God’s creation in a God-glorifying way.

Don’t make a mistake here. Make sure you see how amazing Paul’s distinctions are. Just as the weak in faith are not self-exalting in their abstinence, so the strong in faith are not self-indulgent in their liberty. Verse 6b is so crucial: “The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” In Paul’s way of thinking, the weak and the strong are radically God-centered people. They are deeply thankful people. Their differences are in their convictions about what behaviors are “unclean”—what behaviors give more glory to God.

And even on this point the differences only relate to non-essential things. You can see this as we turn to the second question: How does Paul say we should treat each other when we have these differences?

3. How Should We Treat Each Other When We Have These Differences?

He says it positively in verse 1 and negatively in verse 3. Verse 1: “As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.” In other words, be accepting of the weaker brother, and be sure that as you fold him into your life, you keep “divisive questionings” (diakriseis dialogismön) to a minimum. I take that to mean: questionings about meat and wine and days, etc. So the first, positive, instruction Paul gives about how the strong and weak should treat each other is: welcome each other, accept each other. And don’t let “divisive questionings” over non-essentials create barriers.

The negative way of saying it is in verse 3: “Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats.” Typically the strong will be tempted to “despise” the weak—look down on them with a patronizing air. Paul has not done that in this chapter and we should not do it either. And typically the weak will be tempted to judge the strong because, to the weak who are careful to abstain from things, the strong seem to be spiritually careless. So the weak are tempted to point out careless behavior that may well be leading to a fall—to spiritual destruction. In other words, they are not legalists who say: you can’t be saved if you do that; but they do say, If you are spiritually careless like that you may drift away and be lost.

So Paul says, negatively, don’t despise each other and don’t judge each other, and don’t build your relationships on “divisive questionings” or “quarrels over opinions.” Rather accept each other and build your lives—your relationships—on something far greater than convictions about meat and wine and days. On what? That is what Paul takes up in verses 3b and 4.

He mentions three great truths that give a firm and glorious foundation for accepting each other with our differences.

3.1. God Has Accepted Us in Jesus Christ

Verse 3b: “God has welcomed him.” The strong and weak should welcome each other because God has welcomed us. Paul says in again in Romans 15:7, “Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” The great foundation for our forbearance of one another is that God has accepted us in Jesus Christ. The weak and the strong believe in Christ who died for them. They are accepted by God in Christ. We should accept them with all their differences.

3.2. God Will Be Our Judge

Verse 4a: “Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.” The second great foundation for our tolerance of each other is that we will all give an account to our one Master in heaven. Each of us has one Master, Jesus Christ. Husbands, your wives will give an account to him. Wives, our husbands will give an account to him. Pastors will give a most serious account to him. You need not lift yourself up as judge. Leave it to God. So the first foundation of our accepting one another is that God has accepted us, and the second is that God will be our judge, so that is not our job.

3.3. God Will Make Us Stand in the Last Day

Verse 4b: “And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” Here Paul goes beyond the statement that believers have a judge in heaven. He now says, Every believer will be upheld in the judgment. Every believer will stand erect and accepted in the last day. The weakest believer you know will stand glorious and vindicated and loved and forgiven and righteous and accepted in the last day.

Conclusion

Therefore, Bethlehem, welcome one another—receive and accept one another—into sweet unity and harmony and fellowship, not on the basis of “divisive questionings” about non-essentials but on the basis of the glorious truths that God has accepted the believers from whom we differ most; God alone, not you or I, is the final judge; and God himself, with sovereign preserving grace (Jeremiah 32:40-41) will see to it that every believer perseveres in faith and stands upright and full of joy before the Judge on the last day. Dwell on these great truths, and accept one another with our differences in non-essentials.

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in physical form, in its entirety or in unaltered excerpts, as long as you do not charge a fee. For posting online, please use only unaltered excerpts (not the content in its entirety) and provide a hyperlink to this page. For videos, please embed from the original source. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Conscience: How to Welcome a Weak Brother, Part 1-3, Complete Edition

0 Response to "Conscience: How to Welcome a Weak Brother, Part 1-3, Complete Edition"

Posting Komentar

Postingan Populer

Label