Don
Patton on Romans 14
Don
Patton
Romans
14 - Fellowship
Transcription
of sermon preached at the Judson Road congregation in Longview, TX
on April 12, 1990
(Note: When this tape was originally transcribed by Tom Roberts, he did not transcribe the introduction as a time saving measure. Nothing of substance to the current controversy is included in the introduction.)
.....Regarding those things, he's talking about making a decision of scruples. Now this word is not radically different. It' s almost a play on two words that are very, very similar. Deciding concerning decisions would be close. But the word scruples carries with it more of a personal appl ication . Again, from Thayer, we're told that in Greek writings from Plato on down the thinking of a man deliberating within himself. Hence, a thought, inward reasoning, deliberating, questioning about what is true. And so here we are discussing that which is going on the inside, discerning, trying to decide what's true, and the dissension, the judging, the contending, the deciding that goes on about such matters. That's the subject of this chapter.
Very often, and from most of the commentaries, we hear the conclusion that this is just about things that are incidental and don't matter anyway. Now believing that, then those who cause the fusses and the fightings over all this myriad of issues then are not bothered at all by the chapter because anything they fuss about is important. And if it is just about incidental matters, then they don't have to worry about what it says. It just guts the chapter, as for its practical application is concerned.
There are two specific items that are mentioned in the chapter as illustrations of what he is talking about. In verse 2, he speaks of one who believes that he may eat all things, but then he who is weak eats only vegetables. Here are those who are knowledgeable, those who are not, those who understand that there is nothing to an idol and doesn't have any problem eating all kinds of meat. Others won't do that. They don't understand. And eating meats, or eating vegetables, per se, is not right or wrong, But we'll return to that thought in just a moment.
There was another issue mentioned in verse 5 where he says one man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Here were special days, holy days, that were observed by some and not observed by others. And it was a religious observance under consideration here, according to verse 6: he that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord. This is worship. This is a religious observance, observed by some and not by others, a re1igous observance that was unknown to the revelation from God. It was unauthorized worship being observed by some. Very porbably the observance of some of those Old Testament feast days and holy days sanctioned under the Old Testament, but which were warned against in the New Testament. And the truth about such matters was very clearly revealed. Remember in Col. 2:14 regarding that old law and its requirements we're told that he was blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. And specifically applying that principle in verse 16, he says therefore let no man judge you in meat, or drink, or in respect of holy day, new moon or the sabbath days. These requirements are taken out of the way and those who practice it today religiously, like circumcision, told the Galatians, had fallen from grace, they're severed from Christ. That which is unauthorized as a religious observance is wrong. And specifically regarding the holy days , Paul in Gal. 4:10 says you observe days and months and seasons and years and I fear for you that perhaps I've labored over you in vain. This was not an incidental matter. This was a matter that put the soul in jeopardy. And the fear that Paul has is for their eternal destiny.
But regarding any act of worship, whether personal or congregational, if it is unauthorized, it's wrong. Jesus was talking about some personal acts of washing hands and pots and vessels, you remember, in Matt. 15:9 when he said in vain they worship me teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. Didn't come from God. Man had decided to do this. He said, that's in vain, and then goes on in v. 13 to say, every plant which my heavenly father has not planted will be rooted up. No, this is not an incidental matter when you are observing days that are unauthorized unto the Lord as worship, as holy days. It's a matter of clear revelation. Don't go beyond what's written.
Furthermore, the truth about eating meats which you might consider incidental still was a matter of revelation. And God had revealed exactly what he thought about that. In Matt. 15 [Acts 15, tr], a letter was written to all the churches about what God thought about eating meats. It wasn't incidental when God revealed it, if they weren't then accepting what had been revealed, then there's still a serious problem involved. And so to say that there are just incidental matters is to ignore some very obvious principles in the New Testament.
Further indications that this was much more than an incidental matter is what we find in v. 4 when he speaks of this one who was weak and said to his own master he stands or falls. The master being God. Stand he will for the Lord is able to make him stand. But of course, he is in no danger if this is just an incidental matter, he doesn't need to be made to stand before the Lord. He's in no danger of falling. But it's a matter of standing or falling before God that's under consideration in this chapter.) Of course, that's making him stand is unnecessary if he's already standing.
And furthermore, this is a chapter that is designed, as we suggested, to make for peace. That's the purpose of it, v. 19. That's the result of the application of this chapter. But how are you going to make for peace among those who are weak and think something is wrong that their brother is doing and thus divided when you're just saying don't fuss over incidental matters? How's that going to help? The weak brother who thinks it's sin is not going to be helped at all and he's still going to judge his brother and set him at nought and there's absolutely no teaching that's going to affect him at all from this chapter if that's the way its viewed. I think that we're very definitely dealing with things that are matters of revelation, one of which very obviously was a sin that Paul was afraid that'd cause his labor to be in vain, that'd be rooted, and they needed to be made to stand, because they had fallen before God. There was the confidence expressed that they would be made to stand. But that shows that it wasn't just a matter of indifference.
Now then regarding the instructions that are given in this passage concerning such differences, individual matters as we'll see later, I think there are at least three specific conditions to be met to come under this category.
And the first was that this individual was a brother, and that's obvious from v. 3, which says for God hath received him, when he telling them not to judge. Whatever and whoever is involved, they are brethren whom God hath received. And he can't be treated like a brother unless he is a brother. And he's not received by God unless he's born in to the family. And so we're not talking about aliens. Conscientious differences among aliens are not under consideration at all. The sincere, outside of Christ, are still lost, they have not been received, Cornelius is an example from Acts 10. We have the promise that as long as they're conscientious they will, through God's providence, come to a knowledge of the truth, John 7:17. But they're not commanded to be received as a brother. So condition number one is that we're talking not about aliens, but about brethren and how you treat them.
Number two is that must be conscientious and sincere in the matter, that is, not rebellious. In v. 5, as he's speaking of these differences, one man regards one day above another, and another regards every day alike, he says, let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. In 1 Cor. 5, there was the individual who had his father's wife, a sexual sin that wasn't even practiced among the Gentiles. And they were puffed up about it, they weren't mourning, they weren't sorrowful. Now this was just overt, rebellious sin. This is a different situation here. Here is a situation where each one is conscientious, he's fully persuaded, as another version says, not rebellious. Now that conscientious brother who's fully persuaded at this point can be made to stand. That's what God says will happen to this individual. Of course, we can't read hearts. But as long as a person professes conscientiousness, then I think we are obligated to accept it. The brother in 1 Cor. 5 was obviously in contrast to that circumstance.
Furthermore, when we look at this chapter, it is obvious that we're talking about individual matters, not congregational matters. A brother that's conscientious regarding these differences that are of an individual nature. In v. 5, we read one man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced. Likewise in v. 6, he that regarded a day regardeth it unto the Lord, the point being it doesn't involve the others. It's between him and the Lord. And that's emphasized continually in the chapter. He that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he regardeth it not. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord. He that giveth thanks, he that eateth not, to the Lord. This is not between you and the brother, it's between him and the Lord. An individual practice under consideration. Individual matters do not directly affect the whole. Congregational matters, like matters of worship in the congregation, as a group, necessarily affect the whole. And when things are wrong, on that level, then you're going to be involved, regardless, whether you believe it's right or not. You can't participate. That's a different circumstance. In 1 Tim. 5:22, he says lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself pure. When you enter into a practice as a congregation that's wrong, then you are not keeping yourself pure. You're becoming contaminated. You become partaker. But the situation under consideration here was not involving the whole. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls. The emphasis is, this is between him and God. None of your business as far as setting him at naught or judging. It is your business as far as his eternal salvation is concerned as we'll emphasize in a moment. But it's not your job to set him at naught at this point, to end the relationship, to be contentious. We'll emphasize more the meaning of that in a moment.
Congregational matters necessarily produce division because we cannot be partakers of other man's sin. And that's why issues like instrumental music and missionary societies, those things that involve the expenditure of the collection of money, necessarily involve being partaker of the action of the whole. And I don't think there is any way to be party to that without being guilty of sin. These are not the matters that are being discussed in this chapter. They necessarily involve everyone. There are other items, like the public contentious teaching of the word, the promotion of false teaching publicly. In 2 Jn. 10, if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for him that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker in his evil deeds. (Those who publicly teach and promote and proclaim error to lead souls astray, purposefully, and broadly, then these individuals you cannot have fellowship with. Those who are factious, likewise, constitute a party which we cannot have party in and Paul says to Titus in ch. 3:10, reject a factious man after a first and second admonition. And so, when we are dealing with factious individuals that destroy the unity and the enthusiasm and the souls that could be reached with such enthusiasm, when we are dealing with the public proclamation of false doctrine or when we are dealing with issues that all are necessarily involved in, then we're not dealing with the things that this chapter described, but rather we're dealing with individual issues such as we had on the chart earlier. Now you notice that this last chart is lots smaller than the other one. There aren't that many congregational issues. There are a whole lot more than we'd like for there to be. But there are exactly ten times as many on the first chart as on the one we just looked at. And I think that really understates the relationship. There are many more individual issues over which brethren fall out regarding and these are the things addressed in this chapter for which there is no excuse when we have dissension and falling out among brethren regarding instructions. Notice the commands, not suggestions, not advice, but the commands that are given regarding these issues, the scruples, the individual conscientious decisions made among brethren: some wrong, some incidental, but differences that we have over such matters. He commands in v. 1, him that is weak in the faith receive ye, yet not for decisions of scruples. Now he's not weak in regard to his faith in Christ and the resurrection. but he's weak in his understanding. Some understood about the Jewish days, some understood about eating meats, and some didn't. They're weak in their understanding. But this brother who is conscientious about this individual matter of difference is one toward whom we are commanded to receive. Now the concept of receiving is just the opposite of derision, refusing to accept, looking down your nose at, that is in refusing this warm reception that Christians ought to have from one another. The word translated "receive" from Thayer, the original word, means according to Thayer, to receive, to grant one access to one's heart, to take into friendship and intercourse, Rom. 14:1; 15:7. God in Christ are said to have received those whom formerly estranged from them they had reunited themselves by the blessings of the gospel, Rom. 14:3. This is the warm relationship that ought to exist among Christians but here he's speaking about Christians who have differences sometimes over matters that are wrong. And he says you receive them under these circumstances. Yes, they're wrong. But these individual matters of scruple that don't involve you in sin are matters between brethren that ought not to divide. And we are commanded to receive in such circumstances. In Gal. 2:5, he talks to those who gave to he and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. I think that's the idea involved in the word receive. No second class brethren concept to be allowed under these circumstances.
I think it's further defined as he, by contrast, describes the opposite. You are to receive, the opposite you are not to do. He says in v. 3, let not him who eats regard with contempt him who does not eat. Don't do it, Instead, you receive, Now the NAS says don't regard with contempt, Other translations, perhaps, would shed more light on that. The KJ says despise not. The ASV says not to set at nought or consider him worthless or nothing. Amplified NT, pass judgment on. Barclay's says to contemptuously despise. All of these are close and combined to give us an idea of what we are not to do toward these brethren who are weak in their understanding on individual matters, conscientiously don't understand all they ought to understand and may be wrong in these matters. He commands in v. 13, let us not therefore judge one anotherany more. Now the word judge has various meanings in the NT and there is obviously some judgment that is required. But in this context, he is talking about failing to receive as a first class Christian, giving the right hand of fellowship, instead, despising, setting at nought, judging in that sense. That is what is forbidden. That is, these conscientious brethren who have different ideas over these individual matters. Now lest anyone misunderstand, let's emphasize that judging as most people think of it is not categorically forbidden in the NT. There's some judging that's obviously required. In John 7:24, a passage not nearly as well known as Mt. 7 that says judge not, which it seems like almost every sinner knows, when you try to confront them. But here's one that says judge with righteous judgment. Involves, for example, determining the difference between truth and error. That requires judgment. Righteous judgment is to be exercised. And we are told beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing. You have to raise the sheepskin and look under to see. And that involves an element of judging. You will know them by their fruits. We're fruit judges, if you please. And we discern. We are commanded to discern between truth and error. And we are commanded to expose that which is false. In Titus 1:10, we read for there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, deceivers, especially those of the circumcision who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. Now here we have that which involves the whole, obviously. And there is some judgment to be involved and they are to be silenced. We see Christ doing just that as he opposed the false teachers as well as Paul and Stephen and John the Baptist, and often suffering because of it. And those who teach that you don't expose error, you just love everybody regardless, don't understand and haven't read much about Christ and John the Baptist and Stephen and Paul and the prophets because that's the way they spent their time, a good portion of it. It involves warning those who are lost. And I think that is a part of what's involved in this chapter. You don't just ignore the fact that they are in error. You go to them and talk to them. But you do it in a spirit of acceptance, what this passage is teaching. In Titus regarding those who were these false teachers promoting the error, especially in the previous verse, those who were lying and deceiving, he says reprove them severely. And we ought to warn such individuals. Ezek. 33:8 gives the principle that's taught also in the NT where God says when I say to the wicked, 0 wicked man you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man will die in his iniquity but his blood will I require at your hand. Any brother, individually conscientious or not needs to be and must be warned if we are to maintain the purity of our own soul. But we can do so in a spirit of acceptance without setting him at naught. We are to withdraw from some who won't repent and we are told in 2 Thess. 3:6, we command brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, gets out of ranks, like the soldiers, the literal meaning of the word and refuses to walk in step. Now we are not saying that you don't distinguish between truth and error and you don't expose false teachers and you don't warn those that are lost or you don't practice church discipline toward those who won't repent. That's not what's being said at all. But this text involves, we might summarize it this way, well, let's go on past that for just a moment. We missed the chart that I was looking for. We'll back up to that, hopefully. Personal convictions, another way to say decision of scruples, conditions being a brother that God has received, one who's fully assured and that is a personal matter regarding each man under the Lord alone, apart from his neighbor. Now under such differences, such issues, scruples, the command is, you Now you receive him, you don't set him at naught, you don't judge. Now you should try to teach, with patience, you don't ignore it, but you are commanded to receive such a brother. Now I think most of those in the body of Christ at this place practice that kind of Christianity. But there are a lot of brethren, and brethren in this area, that do not practice this kind of Christianity. But over virtually any kind of difference, individual or not, they draw lines of fellowship and do set at naught and refuse to receive and they call it standing for the truth. But it's not. It's standing against the truth. And providing a context that opposite from what God wants. He's able to make that conscientious brother stand and when it's an individual matter that doesn't necessarily involve you, then you don't have to set him at naught, you can go ahead without sinning yourself and work toward teaching and admonishing and building that brother up. Over the years, at least in a general way, I find that brethren have practiced this principle. Not necessarily because they understood it. Sometimes we do by nature the things of the law. But when you look at issues like carnal warfare or the covering which, historically, have been issues among brethren, but individual issues. We've seen women who will sit beside other women, one covered, and the other not covered. They're not involving the other, they have conscientious difference of an individual nature. Now if the one wearing the covering is right, the one not wearing it is wrong. And they're demonstrating rebelliousness which is a sin, a serious sin. But brethren have recognized that this conscientious difference over individual matters ought not to divide brethren and generally it hasn't. I think when it has, and there have been instances that it's is a violation of this chapter and they have refused to obey the commands that are given here. And likewise, when especially in times of war, there have been heated discussions over whether it is appropriate to be soldier or not and those who believe its wrong think those who are may be involved in murder. But they understand these individual differences are not to divide brethren and they typically have accepted one another as they continue to study and warn and teach one another. And while some may emotionally say, but he's a murderer, other, more level-headed brethren will recognize that's not really the issue in such a case. The issue is not murder, neither brother would think about murdering. The question is: is it murder? And that's a different issue. And some believe differently about it and I think generally they practice what the Bible requires. Historically there have been too many positions to count regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. But I don't know how you would find any issue that was more personal, that's more of an individual nature where other Christians would not be directly involved. Now if anything is of any individual nature, like the covering question or the carnal warfare question, it would be the personal convictions regarding divorce and remarriage. Now I have some very strong convictions about what the Bible says. But I know there's some conscientious brethren that differ with me and I think they're wrong and I welcome the opportunity to sit down and to study with them but I'd do it res..., because I don't have to divide over that like I would if I was worshipping with brethren who wanted to take my money and spend it for some unscripturally. And I believe the command is to receive, do not set at naught, do not judge over such matters. And when we do, we're violating the plain commands of the word of God and creating dissension where it ought not to be, where God forbids it. Enough times where it's required without getting over into the area where he forbids it and adding to the problem. And some will say well there are adulterers and if there are adulterers who willfully, knowingly, commit adultery, then they ought to be treated just like that brother in 1 Cor. 5, but most often that's not the issue. The question is: Is It? Neither brother would commi t adultery if they believe that's what was involved. But is it adultery? That's a different issue. About which brethren have differed. I wish they didn't, but they do. And we should try to teach them, but this chapter is about how you treat brethren while you're trying to teach them. Not whether they are right or whether they are wrong but how you treat them while you're trying to teach then and while you're trying to come to the harmony that ideally exists among brethren. Now when we understand that some are babes in Christ and some are middle-aged, and some are mature, we expect that there's going to be differences and the ones who do not expect that are just not looking realistically at the circumstance described in the NT. Babes in Christ, those who are weak, described here in Romans 14, didn't understand what the others understood. And they were wrong about some things. About things concerning which God had revealed the truth. And they didn't understand it yet. And it takes time to grow and learn and babies fall down and they stumble and they act like babies and just be realistic about it, that's the way it is. That's not unusual. (How do you treat them? Well, as long as you have this situation where you're not involved in the sin, where you have a conscientious brother, then the command is don't you dare set him at naught. You receive him. And when you refuse to do that you're going to be lost yourself. Now if brethren will learn that lesson, which they have generally practiced, but there's just some things they seem to get madder at than other things. And that's about the only explanation about whey they divide over some things and don't on others. They just get madder about it. And that's not what ought to be the determining factor. There is a very specific difference that requires us to divide in some instances where we can't be partaker in another man's sin. But there are things where we're not involved where this is another man's servant. It's between him and the Lord and we're commanded under such circumstances where you have a conscientious brother don't do it. And let's not be guilty of that, but brethren have. And that's why we've had all of these dissensions, tens of thousands of them, much more than the hundred that we had on the board a few minutes ago. Enough things that we have to divide over. But not nearly as many as what we have divided over and we ought to be ashamed. And the answer to it is in the divine wisdom that we have from this chapter.
To clarify and to make sure we're not being misunderstood, let me just go through what we are saying and what we are not saying. Regarding individual matters of conviction where brethren inwardly have convictions that differ, we are not saying that differences are of no consequences. They certainly are. We are not saying that some commands are non-essential. Anytime a brother is wrong he is in danger of being lost and the brethren there in Romans 14, some of them very obviously were in danger of being lost. That's not what we are saying at all. We're not saying that we cannot understand God's will. We can, and we are commanded to. But those that are weak in the faith don't understand all that those who are strong and more mature do. We are not saying that further study is unnecessary. It certainly is for the soul to be saved. We're not saying that sincerity makes a brother right, he's sincerely wrong, and in danger of being lost. But the question is, how do you treat him in that circumstance? We're not saying that we should accept error. We don't accept the error at all. We accept a brother while we try to expose and teach and warn about that error but in the context of acceptance, refusing to set at naught. (Back that off, just go one forward). We're not saying that we should not have strong convictions and we are not saying we should not express our convictions. Now if a brother is publicly proclaiming and making an issue that can't be avoided out of it, that puts him in the category of the teacher of 2 Jn. 9 and no longer just an individual matter. But I think we can express our convictions without getting into that category and disagree with one another in humility, acknowledge that we...
(end of side one of tape..,disconnected sentences . . .)
(... haven 't learned it all and sit down and study together That's what we are commanded to do here.
That's what we are not saying. What we are saying is that we must not set at nought brethren over these individual matters of conscience that don't necessarily involve me. Conscientious brethren must not be set at nought. That we must not be contentious over such matters, that we must not be divisive over such matters. To do is sin, work of the flesh. We must continue to learn. We are commanded to in 1 Pet. 1:5, grow in knowledge. We must be humble, knowing that we don't know it all and that we are in error about some things we'll learn about maybe next week. We must be patient and forebearing, and we must receive one another under these circumstances. Now if you are not doing that brethren, over these matters, maybe you're just mad about some of them more, you need to back off and examine your attitudes and actions in view of what this chapter commands. And I believe if brethren would practice that, we would be able to spend a whole lot more time teaching the gospel. And we'd reflect on the truth of the word of God, a whole lot less. And we'd have young, weak Christians, a whole lot more of them grow up to maturity rather than get run off. And we'd be a whole lot more pleasing to God when we accept his word and follow his divine wisdom. But I know that's not always done and we need to repent of it and make it right. I think it will make a world of difference in the body of Christ when we learn to apply these principles.
If you're here this evening and not a Christian, not a member of the body of Christ, know that at this place we are determined to do what it says and nothing else. And when brethren don't, we're going to warn them and we're going to do everything we can to nourish them to maturity in the body of Christ. And we are ashamed of some of the things that have gone on as well we should be. But the truth is the truth and if you haven't obeyed it, no matter what anybody else or everybody else does you have to do what God says. And we encourage you to obey the gospel this evening cause that's what the word of God tells you to do. Without it, you're lost. Come confessing your faith in Christ, repenting of your sins, being baptized into Christ. If as a child of God, you've wandered away, maybe discouraged over dissension, we understand that. But you can't hide behind the sin of others. You have to stand foursquare before God responsible for your actions. If you've not been faithful, that's wrong. Won't you come back and make that right, while we stand together and sing?