Don
Patton on Romans 14
Don
Patton
Exegesis
of Romans 14
Preachers'
Study - Grand Prairie, TX (November 10, 1994)
I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here. To speak to you today, and your coming. I appreciate very much the spirit that has prevailed throughout the major part of these discussions, and that is not just something to say as you begin a presentation, I think its a very important phenomenon, and I sincerely appreciate it.
I believe we are dealing with a very important subject with very severe and far reaching consequences. And so it deserves our careful and prayerful attention. I believe that very conscientious efforts to make this chapter say what we really feel like it ought to say are producing tragic results, and results as we suggested that are far more reaching than many realize. I think it has produced an inadequate defense, an inadequate barrier against the apostasy that is threatening the church, that is very real. Instead of being a barrier it has become in effect an open door, and at the same time the forced interpretation has shut out some the Lord has determined may stand.
I believe that consistent application of the alternative view to the one I hold, if consistently practiced would produce splinters without number. I'm glad that it is not practiced as preached. I think when we allow the passage to simply say what it says, that we're following the Lord's way, that we're following divine wisdom, and that it is always much more effective in producing both the positive results and in protecting against the negative consequences. And I believe that this alternative view is...does just that ...both of them. I think its a more effective, powerful barrier to apostasy that is sorely needed. I think it provides opportunity for truth loving brethren who have fallen to come to a position of standing, a chance for growing them up to a standing position, at the same time accomplishing peace. Of course, that's the purpose of the chapter. I think this is the focal point that we find in verse 19, "So then let us pursue the things which make for peace, and the building up of one another." Of course that must not be pursued apart from and contrary to what God's word says, it must be according to the specifications of the word of God. But within those specifications, divine wisdom revealed in this chapter, will produce these results. I think these results are being thwarted with misunderstanding.
Let's begin looking at verse 1, where we find in the KJ translation that we're told, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." In the NKJ we have the term, "Disputes over doubtful things." They are to be received, but these disputes over doubtful things are to be stopped. NAS translates it, "passing judgment on his opinions." The ASV says, "Decision of scruples." And so there's a variety of ways to translate that, and that may somewhat obscure the meaning. Let's look carefully at these two words, "decision of scruples" which are the key words in determining what we are talking about. We find this definition from Thayer of the first one, "decision" - a distinguishing, a discerning, a judging. And then refers to Romans 14:1. The second word, which the ASV translates "scruples" is defined this way. A deliberating within himself, hence a thought; inward reasoning; Romans 14:1. It goes on and mentions an opinion, and then a deliberating, a questioning about what is true. Now some, seeing the definition "opinion", and with the NAS translation translating "opinion", have insisted therefore this means its not consequential, its a matter of indifference because its just a matter of opinion. And that's not implied by this term, and is reasoning unworthy of our brethren.
Opinion about what? It can be an opinion about inconsequential things, it can be an opinion about very important things. But the fact that its an opinion doesn't tell you what its an opinion about. Its a deciding, a deliberating, a questioning. In fact , as he goes on defining this, this questioning... here in Luke 24:38 obviously is about what is true. You look at that verse, here is Jesus saying, "Wherefore do questionings arise in your heart." And what were these questionings, or scruples, or opinions about? "See My hands and My feet that it is I myself. Handle..." It is about the resurrection of Christ. And they had inner opinions, questionings about that. And so that it is an opinion gives us no information. However, as we look at that definition and see that it obviously involves things that are true and was causing disruption in a congregation, I think the implication is that certainly one of them at least thought that this was a matter of faith, unquestionably. I think we have to allow the context to be the primary factor there.
Again, at verse 1 we are told that we are to "receive" the individuals who were involved in these decision of scruples. And a good deal has been made of the word "receive", I think sometimes inappropriately. This term is defined by Thayer to mean to receive, to grant one access into one's heart, to take into friendship and intercourse, Romans 14:1. I do not believe it involves a joint participation which is always forbidden with anything that is wrong according to Galatians 5:11. But a receiving of these, one of whom thought the other was wrong...I believe the other was wrong, for reasons we will proceed to discuss. But the argument is made immediately, usually, from II John 9 that this can't be a matter of faith, because we are told that any one who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God, and this individual we are not to receive. And here's one you were to receive, but you can't receive one if it involves the doctrine or the teaching of Christ, and so the receiving can't be of one then who differs in the teaching or the doctrine of Christ.
I guess that might sound good as we run that past. But a careful examination shows a number of serious problems with that. In the first place there are some serious inconsistencies with those who are urging such, because they don't apply it absolutely as they do in the argument. There are some obvious exceptions. I think forebearance involves receiving one that is wrong, that may be differing in matters of doctrine. Ephesians 4:2, "With all humility, and gentleness with patience, showing forebearance to one another." The response that we get is, "Well yes, this.." as Harry Osborne said in one of his articles responding to this point, "Well yes, this is simply speaking as the oracles of God, and yes, the oracles of God specify areas where reception is to be given under various circumstances with various scopes of limitation." And that's not contrary to the doctrine of Christ, that is within the doctrine of Christ. It is interesting that this term translated forebearance here in Ephesians 2:4, we look at Kittle's definition, means to receive, to take up, to bear, and endure. Taking to oneself of one's neighbor in the sense of tolerating. Used of Jesus in the sense where it refers to His toleration of some things that were disturbing. The apostles were off in matters of doctrine. And He exercised some toleration, reception, forebearance. And so this "don't receive them if they're different in doctrine" is not absolutely applied by Christ or by those who make the argument. And doing so is within the doctrine of Christ, forebearance abides in the teaching of Christ. And so it certainly is not forbidden by this passage, and there are a number of specified areas according to the oracles of God, where we must receive. No, we don't receive according to II John 9, but there are some exceptions to that which the New Testament specified. We forebear, we suffer long according to I Thessalonians 5:14. Even one who is definitely sinning according to Matthew 18, when your brother sins, is not to be forbidden receiving, that is we cut off the receiving, until you go through the procedure, patiently disciplining the individual, and then he is considered a heathen. But during this period the brother is sinning. And even the factious is to receive the first and second admonition. During that time he is being received, you are in his face teaching him. And we are not talking about receiving in the sense of ignoring the sin by any means. This is a picture of the reception. Doing your best to try to make him stand, teaching and confronting him. But here with the factious individual he gets... There are areas within the doctrine of Christ that specify reception and I believe that Romans 14 stands just as I Thessalonians 5:14 does within the doctrine of Christ specifying such an area.
But the argument that is made here is, when examined, a very circular argument. That's a very deceitful, sneaky kind of argument, that is in terms of our own selves, it can fool us. Sometimes many brethren, myself included find ourselves using such arguments without realizing it sometimes. And some of you have heard me refer to the evolutionist's effort to build the geologic column, and illustrating his circular logic this way in the column. He says, "This is a primitive fossil." And I respond, "How do you know that's a primitive fossil?" "Well, its found in an old rock." "OK, I understand that. But now how do you know that's an old rock?" "Well, its got a primitive fossil in it." Now that's somewhat of an oversimplification, but it illustrates the procedure that is often used, and many times the geologist's don't realize that is being done. It's not bad logic, if we build this column based on circular logic to illustrate the concept, then test it with the facts it is a valid procedure. Its not bad or evil, it just doesn't prove anything. It illustrates the concept. And we have very similar reasoning exercised here. The argument is made you can receive this brother , because this is a matter of opinion. That's the proof that you can receive him. Because, well how do you know its a matter of opinion? Well, we can receive him. The fact that we can receive him proves its a matter of opinion. And around we go in the same fashion. Now that's not evil or wrong. It illustrates the thought process, but it doesn't prove anything. And when we see that there are areas within the doctrine of Christ that specify reception, we're testing against the evidence to see that the absolute application of that is wrong. I Thessalonians 5, "We exhort you to be longsuffering toward all." That's a concept that's within the doctrine of Christ toward those that are wrong. I think those who take the other position ought to understand forebearance and longsuffering toward those who are wrong, sinning is within the doctrine of Christ.
Now the scope here is different, I believe from the scope in Romans 14. The scope is much narrower in Romans 14 than it is here with longsuffering. And we'll get to that narrower scope that's specified in the chapter as we proceed. I think the time limitation is wider, but the scopes are defined in each context. But both of them involve receiving one who may not be right. Now, when we say without time limitation over here, I think that concept has been misunderstood by some. I don't think there is a time element mentioned in the context here in Romans 14, and we are not to decide how long. At the same time there are factors that would clearly prove its not permanent, as its sometimes been represented. It is terminated when rebellion is demonstrated, because the one in Romans 14 is to be conscientious and fully persuaded in his own mind. By the way, I see some of you furiously taking notes and that's fine, but we do have a very full 7 page outline that we will be able to give to you to take home with you, with virtually all the charts on it. It is terminated when false doctrine is being promoted, then it is no longer an individual matter and this in Romans 14 pertains only to the individual, between him and the Lord. Not like Hymenaeus and Philetus overthrowing the faith of others. When congregations are disrupted then we are not talking about the situation in Romans 14, it would be terminated here. And so its not unlimited, permanent, absolute by any means. Though I think the termination too often comes with judgment of hearts. And that's not the kind of termination that ought to be involved, obviously. And we need to raise the question, when do we terminate?
Now we referred to these passages last time...II Chronicles 6 which says that only God knows the hearts of men. Some of my brethren don't understand that. II Corinthians 2:11 says that, "No one knows the things of a man save the spirit of the man that is in him." There have been a number of people trying to tell me what's in my heart recently, this passage says that they don't know. And that I do know; that I have a right to be dogmatic and they don't. In I Corinthians 4:5 prohibits then judgment of hearts, motives. Leave that to the Lord, that's not our business. Its wrong. And so it must never be terminated on that basis. But it certainly should be here. And there would be some other factors that we will mention as we proceed.
And so when we look at II John 9 we see that there are areas within II John 9, like forebearance and longsuffering and I think what's mentioned in Romans 14 that are obvious exceptions to that. A similar argument is made from Jude 3, where we're told to earnestly contend for the faith and the argument is well, if this is a matter of faith in Romans 14 then we've got to contend for it, we can't receive. And so, absolutely, it's applied we're told, if it is a matter of faith you contend. Because that's what this passage says. Well, the same kind of response ought to be given. Yes, we contend for the faith but there are areas of exception within that category, according to the faith, to forebear, to suffer to patiently discipline. And in the process we are not contending, now we are confronting and teaching, but not I believe in the sense of the contention of Jude 3. Admonishing the factious, for the first and second admonition before he is refused this reception that Romans 14 requires. And then we're to help the conscientious to stand, specified in Romans 14:4. I think this stands in the same place as I Thessalonians 5:4.
And so the point we're making is that the receiving is not always parallel absolutely with agreement in all things. It is not always parallel to our concept of the doctrine of Christ, or the faith. We know that, we agree on that, except in some areas where brethren want to say, "No, it can't be", while they allow other areas where it can be, it is. That's not a consistent approach. We need to allow the oracles of God to speak to tell us where there are exceptions and where there aren't.
Moving to verses 2 and 3, we see the first phase of problem one. I think there is another problem in the second part of the chapter. But there are two phases of this first problem described here in verses 2 and 3. "One who believes he may eat all things....one believes he may eat all...but he who is weak eats only vegetables; let not him who eats despise him who does not eat; let not him who does not eat judge him who eats for God has received him." Here the eater was despising. This brother is ignorant, he doesn't know that this is alright. It's fine, nothing wrong with it. This brother is just an ignorant so and so, and despised, but he doesn't know. The non-eater believed the eater was wrong. And so he refused to eat, and condemned the other brother when he ate. Now we are not told what kind of meats were involved, but the fact that only vegetables were eaten indicates to me that this wasn't the Jewish hangover, which would specify only some meats; but probably involves meat sacrificed to idols and would include maybe all that would be available. We don't know. That's my inclination I guess you could say.
But here were brethren going head to head. One was despising, the other was judging. One of them thought the other one's just wrong as he could be, the other one thought he was just ignorant, and despised him because of it. There's the problem. The condemning, I think, is significant. That's the same word that we find in Colossians 2:16, Let no one judge you, tell you your wrong, judge you and condemn you in that sense. We notice some other translations of that same phrase. Judge in the NKJ that we looked at, "despise not, not set at naught, pass judgment, contemptuously despise." Tell him he's wrong and kick him out, is what the fellow was trying to do. He says, No, you receive him. The opposite of the procedure described here. There was a reason given in this verse as to why he was not to be judged. Do not despise. Do not judge. Why? Because God has received him.
Now, we need to understand that there is a time difference in the verbs that are used here. And I think it's significant in understanding. The despising, the judging, were present tense. Taking place in the present, right then, that means addressing that ongoing action. And the argument for stopping that was based on something that happened in the past, which is punctiliar action, aorist. Because God received him in the past, you quit doing this in the present. Now what conclusions may we draw from that? Does it prove because he was received in the past that he is necessarily received now? Once received always received? That does not follow. Not, once received always received. That doesn't follow from the fact that God received him at some point in the past. That he's always standing is not to be concluded from the fact God received him at some point in the past. That he's always planned that there is proof of approval in the fact in the past he was received. That doesn't follow. What would follow from the fact that he was received in the past is that he is a brother, and he is always a brother, and treated differently from those who aren't. He stands or falls as a brother, even though he has been received in the past, he still does that as a brother, we see that happen. He has access to the blood, he is to be treated differently from those in the world. That follows from the fact God received him in the past. This does not follow necessarily, unless we want to join the Calvinists and say, once received always received. And unfortunately most of the commentaries commenting on this follow this logic because they believe that, once received always received. And we need to understand that that's not a valid conclusion, that does not follow.
I think we can picture what's going on here in verses 2 and 3, the first phase of problem one, this way. Here is the eater who is head to head with the non-eater. One's despising, the other's judging. The same kind of problem is described in verses 5 and 6. Here's the day observer head to head with the non-observer, and they are urged to quit despising and quit judging. Now this one thinks this one is wrong and sinful, depised...contemptuously despised and (unintelligible). This one thinks this one is ignorant, and just needs to know better. And despising him as a result of it.
Now we've got a different situation from this as we look in the latter part of the chapter. Problem two, beginning at about verse 13, involved putting a stumbling block in a brother's way. And here instead of being fully persuaded this fellow's doubting. And in his doubt he follows his stronger brother who really doesn't care, and is urged to have more concern and more love. He is acting with a lack of love, and rebuked for it, because he is leading his brother to violate his conscience. Now they're not head to head with each other. This fellow doesn't care as much as he should, and this fellow is falling. Not fully persuaded, he doubts. He is not convinced, but violates his conscience. Putting a stumbling block in his brother...we will have more to say about that later, but we need to understand that we have got two different situations here. And when God speaks to this fellow who doesn't care, doing what's right; and says look out, you're going to cause this fellow to follow you who's doubting; and doesn't matter if its right; and apply that to a situation over here, where they are head to head with each other; well we've got two different situations. And don't need to take passages out of context. But we will get to that momentarily.
Moving to verse 4, we read, "Who are you to judge another's servant". He had told them don't judge, don't despise. Now here are some further reasons. First, God in the past received him; he is a brother, he is to be treated differently. Next, he argues that this is between him and the Lord, it's not directly affecting you, his action doesn't involve you. It's between him and someone else. Now, the household servant is what's referred to here. And what business does one have judging another's household servant. That's between him and his master. That's not between you and him. And here in the day to day activities of the house, there is approval and disapproval being given, that's used an as analogy to depict this situation. Now the idea of a final, ultimate, one time judgment doesn't fit the picture of the household servant, who from day to day is standing or falling in his master's eyes. Seeking approval from day to day. But he does that, stand or fall to his own master, from day to day, and he is being judged by someone who is not his master. And he says this is not your business, this is an individual's....individual matter. Now you can try to teach him, but you don't contemptuously despise him, judge him, which is the Master's business. And it's not right to judge him because of that.
Now the individual who he is talking about here in verse 4 may be fallen. The standing or falling is present tense, and I believe there is a transition predicted in that the latter part of the verse, using future tense, says he will in the future be made to stand. Now, he is not now, but he will gain approval in the future. Now, the point we are making here is that there is certainly the possibility...he may be fallen. You don't know, it's not your servant. Standing or falling, but he may be...presently. Now we typically, brethren, have not had any trouble understanding what it means for a brother to fall. We certainly know when we look at passages like I Corinthians 10:12, "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." And some of us have been in discussions with those who tried to argue: no, that doesn't really mean falls. And we say, Well, yes it does. Now that is exactly the same word in English and Greek in both passages. It doesn't necessarily prove the point, but I think we can see what would be an obvious indication there, and we know how we think about brethren who..., or non-brethren who oppose this and say no that can't be salvation. Or can't be someone separated from God. In Revelation 2:5 the same word is used again, "Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent." The candlestick hadn't been removed yet, but they had fallen. Not a perfect parallel, but an interesting observation. And here we see a transition predicted from the presently falling, to the in the future will stand. A transition from one of the...one in the fallen state, changed to a situation in the future that's different. I think this is exactly the kind of promise that's made in John 7:17, where Jesus said concerning a certain type of individual, "He will know." Here in Marshall's translation I think the conditions come close to being translated correctly. If anyone wishes the will of Him to do. Really two conditions...wish we had more time to talk about it. Wishes to know....wishes the will....and he wishes to do. Given those conditions he has a promise, he will know. Tremendous implications there. A corollary to what we find in II Thessalonians if he doesn't love the truth, he won't know...he will be sent a strong delusion. It's the same kind of thing that we see in II Peter 2:9, The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation. There are certain individuals the Lord is, through his providence, going to work on. And get them out of temptation. And cause them to know. And bring them to stand. Even though they may have fallen. Even though they don't know, they will be brought to know.
It's interesting to notice, as he says the Lord is able to make him stand, this word translated "able", and compare it with the word that we have in Romans 1:16, the "power" of God unto salvation. I notice one's on page 159, the other is on page 160, and they are very similar looking words. We won't try to get into a lesson on Greek. One's a noun and one's an adjective. And they both refer to strength, ability, power...power...virtually the same word. God has that power, and I think the power is through the gospel, and He'll bring people to Him through His providence, to make sure the power is applied. And He is able to do that. Through that power, to bring this conscientious, truth loving brother to stand.
Now, looking again at verse 4. Another point is made. This is another servant, this is something between him and his master. And we want to emphasize the individual nature of this phase of the problem. This is between him and his master. Verse 5 goes on and says, "Let each man be"...and the individual phrasing is obvious. And I'm not sure anyone would contest that. But when we understand that's the kind of situation that's being described, we understand some situations that are then precluded. Obviously congregational issues would be precluded, because this is not congregational. This is a situation where its between him and the Lord, and it doesn't involve him in participation. And so those things that involve congregational action are precluded by the specification that this pertains to individuals. All of these matters don't belong there, they are excluded.
And there is another very important issue that is likewise excluded by the fact this is individual in nature. Is it possible to commit adultery by yourself? Well, in your mind, but that's not what this is talking about. In I Corinthians 6:18 he commits sin against himself, yes against his own body. Matthew 18:6, says, woe to be...him that causes his brother to stumble. He sins against his partner in the sin, he sins against his spouse according to....assuming that this is a he, in Mark 10:11, commits adultery against her. Against his partner in sin, against her, against himself, there's a crowd; three makes a crowd. That's not individual. And so those who would seek to lead the church into apostasy, and accept all kinds of immoral and adulterous situations can be answered very clearly and very simply. They understand this is individual and often make that argument, and then ignore that individual nature when they talk about adultery. Someone practicing adultery. I think this is the point to make to stop that, its just unanswerable.
Now, we need to make a distinction here. And I hope some listen carefully. Between the practice of adultery, and someone who has a scruple in his mind about what is and what isn't adultery. Not practicing it, trying to understand it, reasoning within himself. May be an individual... Is it adultery is different from shall we practice adultery. We have got two different issues. On the one hand there is a moral problem practicing adultery. Other one...The other one is an understanding problem. This moral issue is written in hearts, even the Gentiles had it in their hearts; this is in scripture and we are trying to understand it. This one's heart has to be hardened if he violates what's in his heart, like those Jews of Romans 2 who went contrary to what was in their hearts and committed adultery. And they're likely to burn. Those who violate their conscience are not recommended to God. This one may be, may not be, but may be conscientious. That's the one we can make stand. But these are two different issues. And I think brethren have made serious mistakes, not understanding that. I think one of them could be, not necessarily, but could be involved in Romans 14. I think this one obviously cannot be, absolutely unanswerably cannot be.
Another situation is excluded by the individual nature of the issue. The situation such as described in II Timothy 2:17, where Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching false doctrine, it was spreading like a cancer, they overthrew the faith of some. Does that look individual? No, this is absolutely excluded by the specification in verse 4 that this is between him and the Lord.
In verse 5, he specifies this fully convinced concept we mentioned. This man really, sincerely believes what he believes. He's a truth lover, he is fully convinced. This is the same word that we have used in Colossians 4:12, where Paul is praying...laboring earnestly in his prayers that you may be...stand perfect and fully assured in all of the will of God. Here is a truth lover, a conscientious brother, trying to do what's right. That doesn't mean because they're conscientious they're right by any means, but that is the kind of brother that's described in Romans 14 here. I think that by necessary inference precludes practicing things like we read about in Romans 2, where even the Gentiles knew better, their heart accused them and condemned them when they did it. This fellow's heart was not accusing him. I think that by necessary inference moral issues are therefore excluded. If even the Gentiles were sensitive to those moral issues, and their heart accused them as we read in Romans 2:15. These things written, and he goes on to mention adultery, among other things. Their heart was telling them. Even the Gentiles had in their heart. How in the world would it get into the Gentiles heart, but be somehow excluded from these conscientious brethren who were members of the body of Christ there at Corinth. That's a rather untenable position to say, Well, now it was in the Gentiles heart, and they all knew; but these brethren here didn't. That's not going to fly. However it got into their heart, it was there, and I think that brethren know moral issues. And you get somebody beginning to practice homosexuality, no matter what kind of arguments he may have rationalized, his conscience will smite him. And that's one of the major problems they have, and suicide is just rampant among them. And with fundamental moral issues, even the Gentiles knew.
I think this shows that the situation in I Corinthians 5 is likewise excluded. This brother is not one who's fully convinced, and conscientious in his heart. Again even the Gentiles knew this was wrong, they wouldn't practice it, and here they were honoring their conscience. In Romans 2 they knew better and they went ahead and did it anyway, but the kind of immorality here in I Corinthians 5 they honored their conscience,...now the Gentiles, weren't...I'm sorry the Corinthians weren't honoring their...the Corinthian brethren weren't. Here was one practicing it, and the others puffed up because of it. Instead of mourning, they were...this was...this was...really big immorality...Of all things, among brethren, when even the Gentiles around them knew better. I don't think we can assume it would be in the Gentile's hearts, but not in the conscientious brethren's hearts. I think they were going contrary to their hearts, and would with moral issues. This is not a new concept, nor a point that is brand new about Romans 14. Now in the lesson that some referred to I don't think I made that as clear as I should have, in the lesson I had preached previously at Easton Rd. I did. The one at Easton Rd. was a little over an hour long. The one that the brethren got the tape of was about 40-45 minutes. Now something got left out, maybe not clarified and I apologize for that.
But notice the point being made by my father in his book "Answers for our Hope", when a question was asked regarding the application of Romans 14. And he says it should be observed first of all that things under consideration in these chapters (it refers to Romans 14:18 previously) are matters of personal indulgence in the realm of positive law. And he quotes McGarvey who defines what that means. Matters of positive law stand apart from those of moral law. This is different. Now the ones in Romans 14 are positive law, they are not moral law. I think that point should be clear from what dad's saying. Clean and unclean meats as well as days to be observed definitely fall in the category of positive law. Not moral issues, moral issues are not there. That's been taught for some time, its not a new concept. And ought to necessarily follow from the description of the heart of the individual involved.
At this point we should be able to see some very clear barriers that God has erected as He commands reception, to make sure it doesn't go too far. God can see that possibility, and He guards against that with walls that are unassailable. In the first place, He guards against the idea that we can receive these conscientious aliens like Ketcherside and others have used Romans 14 to teach. They're conscientious, they're brothers in prospect and so forth. No, this is one whom God has already at a point in the past received. Not prospectively, but actually. And so we are guarded against that point of apostasy. God drew the line that this individual is fully convinced, persuaded in his heart, conscientious. He is not a rebellious individual. And I think here He guards against moral issues where our heart would condemn us, even so would the Gentiles. Those things are excluded by the description of the individual involved. I don't think there is any way to explain how it could be in the Gentile's heart and not in the brethren's heart. And then he says to his own master. This is individual, between him and his master, that excludes promotions like Hymenaeus and Philetus. Factiousness that would divide brethren. Joint participation is excluded. Anytime there is joint participation its not individual is it. So Ephesians 5:11 is not relevant here. This is talking about things where there is no joint participation. If the issue affects the church, it is not individual. If it affects the church, it doesn't belong in Romans 14. We're talking about a narrow field that is described and defined by God with walls of protection to preclude apostasy that I think are stronger walls against apostasy than the false arguments that are being urged that can easily be defeated by the opposition and leave us vulnerable. I think these will work, I think these are unanswerable. But when they begin to point to inconsistencies and arguments that won't stand, the door crumbles.
This is where God drew the line, I think we need to ask where we draw it. Do we do it just where everybody does, because we have always done it that way, or you feel it should be, or you know it should be. I get that impression from some. I think we need to just back off and let the Lord draw it, and follow His divine wisdom.
Now in verse 6 we move to the second phase of this first problem. And that's where we have the observance of days. The first phase involves meats, the despising and judging. But now then here is despising and judging over the observance of days. Now I want to emphasize that it was the day itself that was being observed. It was not something on the day. He didn't pick out a day on which he was to then observe a religious activity. It was the day that was being observed. Now the brethren that I hear trying to argue around this invariably talk about something on the day observed, and if you think the Bible is just kinda inspired, that will work. That's close, but that's not what it really says. What it says is, the day, itself, like the Sabbath, or like Pentecost, like Easter, like...there was a day that was being observed. Now as we look at the term "observe" here, and notice Thayers definition, "to regard a day, to reserve it as sacred, Romans 14:6." Here was a sacred day that they were observing. Now this is not one authorized in the doctrine of Christ, there would be no disputing. Now unless we think unauthorized worship before God is acceptable, this fellow was wrong. I don't think he didn't understand it. Possibly carried over from his heathenism, possibly...
(End of side 1 of tape)
...but right now this is between him and the Lord and you back off. Now we don't have any problems understanding what's involved in observing of days in Galatians chapter 4. "You observe days, and months, and seasons..." Why do we have so much trouble, why not just let it say what it says. Not worry about the Lord making a mistake here. He's got the walls up to guard against apostasy. Let's not worry about it and make Him say something He's not saying. He was doing what Paul here said that he was afraid he had labored in vain, over the Galatians...they were practicing unauthorized worship individually. But I don't think you can observe Christmas at home as a religious holiday. That will make your worship vain, it will be rooted up. But if it doesn't involve me, and he's not promoting it, and if he's fully persuaded, let's just take our time and make him stand. I believe is what is being said here.
Now, amazingly as we look here at verse 6, some brethren will argue he observed it to the Lord. And the fact that it was to the Lord means it must be alright, it can't be wrong. I'm just...I just stand amazed. How does, who its worshipped...or directed to tell you whether or not its received by the Lord. We look in Psalm 98:5 and here you sing to the Lord with the heart, with trumpets and with the horn. Is this right or wrong? Well, the fact that its to the Lord doesn't tell you whether its right or wrong. Today it would not be, obviously. And regarding situations today Matthew 5:33, Jesus is condemning, as He talks about what you have heard, those who were saying you perform your oaths to the Lord, and then you don't have to tell the truth...or, or...well, we won't go into the details of the thing, I think they were justifying not keeping their oath. But its to the Lord. Jesus said, Yes, its to the Lord, but don't do it. It doesn't prove its right. The fact that its to the Lord doesn't mean its accepted by the Lord, and that ought to be obvious.
A similar argument is made in verse 8. "We are the Lord's." Alright, the brethren here that are discussed here in this first section of this scripture..."Live and die to the Lord, and therefore whether we live or die we are the Lord's." And that proves then that they are now acceptable to the Lord? Does this prove we are now standing because we belong to the Lord? Don't we know the Lord's people can sin? Yeah, we are the Lord's, but we can sin. And it doesn't tell us whether we are sinning presently or not, the fact that we are the Lord's. Isaiah 5:13, "My people have gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; their honorable men are famished, and (unintelligible) has enlarged theirself. They will descend into it." They are His people. We are the Lord's. Therefore we must be standing. We know better than that. Jeremiah 18:15, "Because my people have forgotten me they burned incense to worthless idols, and caused themselves to stumble." We are the Lord's, that doesn't help us any. That argument...how long has it been since you heard a gospel preacher make that weak an argument. I think that there is something implied when they have to use arguments that pitiful. And then these pitiful arguments are supposed to be protecting us from apostasy. I believe Ed Fudge knows how to answer that. I believe some of these that are trying to lead the church into apostasy can demolish these arguments. I know how and I think that its wise to assume the one you are going against knows more than you do. They are at least as smart, and can see that.
We looked at the overall picture then of the problem that we're talking about here in the first part of the chapter. One despising the other judging. The eater is judging the non-eater. The non-eater is despising. They're head to head. And the day observer, who is observing the sacred day, itself, not something on the day, is judging this fellow, and this fellow is despising him. Notice the motivations that we find in the chapter, that follow the description of this situation to get them to stop this. He didn't say, now wait a minute, this is right and this is wrong. That's not the approach that he used. He said, this is not your servant, this is between him and his master. This man is conscientious, he will eventually stand. I'm making you a promise, he will...just like I...he will know. He will be delivered out of temptation. This is the kind of heart God worked with. He says this is individual service. You don't have the right...I mean this is...this is something that you don't have to judge. The Lord will. These are the motivations. And the resolution, the solution to it was, you receive him. Right now. You stop despising, you stop judging, you receive this person.
Before we get to the latter part of the chapter and we see a different issue where they're not fully persuaded, but dying. Where they're not despising, but just apathetic, not loving. Here they are doing things that are right, but become a stumbling block. And the motivations to cease it are entirely different. This is clean, yes, your action is right, you strong brother that's not loving as you should, but you don't have a right to do things that are right if its going to cause your brother to violate his conscience. Yes they're good and pure. But your brother is going to follow you. Now this one's not, he's judging (unintelligible), but this one's following. The doubter. And (unintelligible)...these things may be right, but you see the argumentation here is about a problem that is entirely different from this problem. And to lift out of this context descriptions, and apply them to this context, is as obvious a case of lifting a passage out of context as possible. That's an empty phrase sometimes you throw at something you don't like, but that's what's being done here. Its describing a situation that is right where the brother was following, and said yes, its right, but that's not the point. And so the solution is given. You don't eat meat. You avoid sin by what you approve, leading others into sin. A different situation entirely. Two different situations. The first 13 verses is addressed to both the weak and the strong. He tells both of them to quit it. Here the weak is judging the strong, the strong is despising the weak. Each fully convinced, persuaded, both of you back off. Now then in verses 13-23, you have direction only to the strong, the weak is following, not judging. The strong is apathetic, not despising. And the weak doubts, he's not....they're just worlds apart. And to pull this out of this context, and put it in that one, and force it there abuses the passage. Entirely inappropriate to take this which the brother was practicing that's pure and clean and apply it to a brother who was in a fallen condition who they were hoping to make to stand. Who was observing a day unauthorized, the day itself. And say that's pure and clean. These were not. That's why he needed to change his status from presently fallen to future standing. And to take clean and pure and call it....this fallen condition...but clean and pure is really abusing the passage. Reminds us of what we find in Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." I believe that is what brethren are doing here when we deal fairly with the passage, and just let it say what it says.
Moving to verse 19, we see the conclusion of these matters. After discussing the two problems, he says, so let's pursue the things that make for peace. Don't lead your brother into sin by what's right. And don't sit there and go head to head fussing, picking each other's brains out when both of you are conscientious and we're dealing with individual matters. Build up one another. This is what we're trying to do. But, if we say everything in this passage is incidental, my contention is...this passage you might as well cut out of there. Now the second situation, the second problem, wasn't really a problem of peace. Because one was following the other, the problem was a lack of love. The first one was a matter of peace, where they're head to head with each other, despising, judging. And pointed at that situation, he says, here are some instructions for making peace. And as long as one of them thinks the other is wrong, ...you tell him this chapter deals with incidentals, what good's the chapter going to be to him, as long as he thinks its wrong. It's not going to help him a bit, is it. And I challenge you, brethren, to name one issue among us where one does not consider it a matter of faith. No, considering it doesn't make it a matter of faith. But, he believes it. And saying, No, it doesn't make it a matter of faith leaves you where...right in exactly the same spot with the warring sides despising and judging, and solves nothing. And its somewhat like the attitude of the second problem where the strong brother says, yes I'm right, I don't care what he's thinking over here. We need...and the urging here is to back up and not be so selfish in your view, and look at it from your brother's perspective. This weak brother, and see what is happening over here. But in every issue among us, at least one is convinced, that its a matter of...which is why there's a fuss. That being the case, if matters of faith are excluded, then every issue among us is without benefit of Romans 14, it produces peace. It is just gutted, useless. Because everyone of them is produced by someone who thinks this is a matter of faith, and he's going to fight about it, and so you don't apply it to that, its useless. But it was designed to produce peace, and it will produce peace, if we just take it the way the Lord wrote it. And allow it to say what the Lord is saying. It will accomplish the purpose that God intended, as well as protecting I think even better against apostasy, than some of the fallacious arguments that we are hearing.
Now that's what I think the chapter teaches. Let me see if I can take a moment and talk about some of the inconsistencies of the alternative view. I don't want to be ugly, I don't want to be unfair, but I think when you have two positions and you show one doesn't work, you are arguing for the other one positively. And I think its appropriate to check to see if there is a problem of consistency here. And the problem of consistency is monumental in the opposing view. We notice for example, according to the principle that came out in our meeting before, that Bobby is receiving Tom, for example, who have the alternative view, while he believes Tom is encouraging adultery by saying this brother who has been put away for fornication, who's mate has died can go ahead and remarry. Tom thinks if the mate dies he can, Bobby thinks if the mate dies or not, he can't. And so one is saying, you can remarry if the mate dies, is encouraging adultery. And they have a difference on who can divorce, and who can remarry. And Bobby is not setting apart...setting at naught Tom.
On the other end of the same issue we find Tom receiving Bobby while he thinks Bobby is forbidding to marry. Saying, no, the mate's dead, but you can't remarry anyway. Forbidding to marry. I Corinthians 7 says this exposes to danger, and you are to have your own wife, your own husband, that Satan tempt you not. And that's why the Devil wants you to forbid to marry. And Bobby's doing that, according to the view that Tom espoused. And Tom receives Bobby while they do that. I'm not trying to talk him out of it, but I'm just showing the inconsistency with the position that you have to draw these lines in terms of light and dark, and truth and error, and a matter of faith or a matter of doctrine of Christ. This draws the line. Well, that's not what's being done. And I think by nature doing what Romans 14 says, for the most part. Now if either one of them were to begin to split churches and promote and undermine the peace of a congregation on these issues I think they would begin to make this a problem. That is, draw some lines here. That would certainly preclude it being a part of Romans 14.
To give a few...we could just give illustrations without number. Harry Osborne is one who's written on this subject, and he receives Tom...Bobby and Tom while he believes that Bobby and Tom are encouraging hatred in their position on the war question. Now he won't say this is murder, but he says he couldn't do it because he couldn't do it without hatred, and so those who say go ahead and do it would encourage hatred. And so they differ on this matter of faith, this matter of the doctrine of Christ, but they receive one another, and I'm glad they do. This is an individual conviction. Until they begin to factiously promote. We find that Tom and Bobby receive Harry, while they believe Harry teaches the right to remarry is reduced to a footrace to the courthouse on the every divorced person issue of Matthew 5:32. I believe this is the terminology that Tom has used in one of his papers. I think he's right, and I agree with Tom on that issue, and I think that Bobby...that is I think Harry is wrong. But we receive each other on that as far as I know. Certainly they receive Harry.
Now, when do you decide then its not doctrine of Christ, faith. Its not this cut and dried line that is so often represented, When do you do it. Well, Bobby tried to explain the difference between some of these things in a presentation he made here. He said there are some things that need deeper study. Matters that some consider the faith. And he urged that, he thinks that's appropriate. But there are some things that do not. Obviously in the realm of faith. That is, what some consider obvious, and what some consider not so obvious is the determining factor. Now you move to a different part of the country and its not nearly as obvious. And its viewed different way...does that mean our actions should be different? I don't think that kind of fly by the seat of your britches, subjective approach is going to produce peace. Nor is it consistent, or honorable, when we look squarely at it. Its not always based on truth and error, and to claim that is just not telling the truth. That's the claim, but the practice is that this line is drawn in a zig-zag fashion, not according to what is a matter of conviction about faith and error. So that one encouraging adultery is received, and one forbidding marriage is received, and one forbidding service in the military, and one encouraging hatred. Well that's not....well, we see inconsistencies, is what I'm pointing out. And when you condemn others for receiving those in any circumstance where its not a matter of faith, and then do it yourself, well the Bible says that is inexcusable. When we read in Romans 2:1, "You are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge and whatever you judge in another you condemn yourself; for you judge that...you who judge practice the same things." You are receiving people, you differ on those matters. I am not trying to talk you out of it, but, there is an inexcusable inconsistency. And the inconsistency is just pervasive.
The issues are just multiplied, and these are by no means exhaustive. Lest someone misunderstand, we've got a note down here at the bottom, this is not a list of things covered by Romans 14. Don't think that. But here's a list of illustrating inconsistencies. Now there was a disagreement over the 27 questions not too long ago, and here are some brethren who thought that those using this were wrong. And wrote and told them so. And commendably brother Halbrook has decided for the sake of peace in the congregation, we're not...now he disagrees with them, he thinks they're wrong in their position, but he yields, and they peaceably agree. And they haven't drawn lines of fellowship over that issue, though one of them thinks its wrong. And that's the way we treat most issues. I think we have by nature done what Romans 14 says, when it doesn't involve congregation matters. There where our own conscience is necessarily involved, when money is being spent for something we believe is wrong, when we would be required to participate...there there is no question. But on matters of individual nature, that don't involve our conscience and joint participation, typically we have not. Weddings in the building, and capital punishment, and funerals, indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The bible department at Florida College has got a position on that I think is as wrong as...I don't believe the Holy Spirit literally indwells, Himself, personally. But we're not going to fall out. Women in the business meeting, eldership...how many children and what kind, and all conditions. We haven't generally, and that could involve churches.
Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage of course, is the really hot issue. And there its just as inconsistent because you can teach that no divorced person can remarry and you can still be on the inside with most brethren. And you can teach that you may divorce, but not remarry for an unscriptural cause, and still not be on...some do that, they don't draw lines there and you can teach you can separate as long as don't remarry and you're alright. They may disagree with you. But if you teach that one put away for fornication may remarry, that's not alright. And it may not be something your practicing, but just a conviction that you're holding, and you're in serious trouble. Because you got the wrong one. And one can teach baptism starts you fresh, you wash away your wives. That's just as wrong as some of these others up here. But brethren, I'm talking...I'm picturing here the inconsistency in the way brethren draw their own lines. Saying the unbeliever is not subject to the covenant until he becomes a believer. Alright, I think that's nonsense, like...but, here, adultery severs the relationship, Moyer position. That's all out, I mean you do that and your in bad shape. But, if you teach no reason for divorce at all...that's obviously wrong, I think. But I know brethren that hold that position that have never had lines drawn. The inconsistency is pervasive, and it says we need to know how to do this better. And what's happened is gerrymandered lines are drawn to include some in, and to exclude some out by how you draw the lines. By what everybody knows, and what everybody considers, and what everybody doesn't consider. And your consideration...now lets just be honest enough to look at the situation, and it doesn't look very pretty, very honorable.
Now some of us have complained about the gerrymandering in the political arena to draw lines to include more Republicans in this one, or more Democrats in this one. And if your an incumbent you can draw these lines, and get more of your kind in. This is the district I'm in, and this gerrymandering situation here is just so obvious its ridiculous. District 30, its as bad, the corollary in some instances, but look at the way they draw the lines so they can get the right one's in, the right one's out. And we see a very similar kind of thing in this issue of Divorce and Remarriage. Now you can teach you may separate, but no remarriage, without adultery; but if you teach adultery itself destroys the marriage then you're out, you've stepped over the wrong line. And here the red one's are the hot one's, and the green one's are the one's that are not...they're not going to draw fellowship. But, I'm talking about general practice. I'm not talking about what ought to be done. I'm talking about what is generally done. Now there are some hot heads that would write you a proposition on any of those things. But generally speaking, that's the way it works. I think that's sad. That's not the way God intended for it to be. That's not scriptural, not honorable.
The proposed solution draws gerrymandered lines, and its on the basis of what's too hard, and too soft. I remember Homer telling us, almost half in jest, when he was criticized for sending preachers out too hard. He said, well if you send them out just right then they just kinda mellow down as they get older and get rotten. And so if you send them out too hard, then they mellow down to about right. And that's the way he's trying to do it. But that, fly by the seat of your britches, on how hard and how soft you ought to be, and where to draw the lines is not a scriptural procedure. You didn't get that from the book. You may finding it working fairly well. And then just claim consistency when you ignore the reality that it obviously isn't, and then thump your chest and say you have to line up...is just not the way it ought to be. On the other hand the divine solution I think is to allow the Holy Spirit to draw the lines, and let Him say just what He says, and follow it, and depend on His protection. Accept the consequences as just right, despite how we feel, or think, or how we've done it. Conform consistently to the divine line, humbly and boldly speak the truth, bringing brethren to stand. All the time...never compromising with sin.
I think there's been a serious abuse of the passage, with serious consequences. When people say it's only a matter of incidentals, let's just summarize the problems with that position. That the opposition can see as well as I can, and I think can demolish as well as I can. The day was the thing observed, a sacred day, unauthorized...not incidental. He was standing or falling presently. He was potentially in a fallen position, needed to be made to stand in the future. A transition from one to the other is described in the passage. From standing or falling to standing in the future. The motivation was, this is between him and the Lord, it doesn't affect you. That's how he urged the reception, not on the basis of right or wrong, its incidental, that's wasn't what he said here. This is not affecting you directly. The non-eater likewise believed, the eater...if you say, don't fuss about incidentals, which people don't do, it wouldn't help this fellow at all, would it. Now he's telling both of them to stop...this one is not going to stop. And he's the one that's causing the major problem anyway, because he's the one that has conscience behind him. Forcing him...this is wrong...he's not going to stop at all. You're not going to have any peace, with this interpretation. It renders the chapter impotent for peace, because every issue among us somebody thinks its a matter of faith. And if it doesn't pertain to that, then you've got no help from Romans 14. There are some serious problems with this position, and Ed Fudge knows it. And if you try to defend the faith, saying this is just incidentals here he comes, and this is what he's coming with, and he's no dummy. Now I think we need to be ready to meet his arguments, and I think we can. Divine wisdom has provided adequate protection for apostasy. We're protected against this alien being included, prospective or otherwise. We are protected against someone who is rebellious, or someone who is involved in moral issues, by describing the conscientious heart of this individual, is not like those Gentiles who were trampling on their heart, but who was fallen. And it was individual in nature, precluding promotion, and factiousness, and any joint participation, and anything that affects the church. All of these things...Now these arguments work. And that's what it says, and these are God's lines. And I think there are serious consequences, when we fail to just let God say it. The opposition is smart enough to demolish some of these pseudo fences, and these pitifully weak arguments.
It was observed to the Lord, and so it must be accepted by the Lord...No. They are the Lord's people, we are the Lord's, and that proves that they're not sinning. He's received in the past, that proves he's received now. Once received...these kinds of arguments are not going to get it. Talking about one in a fallen position being pure and clean is not going to work, and the opposition knows it. We need to let God's argument work, it works better. The alternative view produces a climate that I think stifles studying. An examination of new concepts. You learn something that some certain brethren don't know, and it gets out, you're in trouble. You better not learn that. Or you better not let so-and-so know you've learned it. If he doesn't know it yet. If they practiced what they preached, which usually they don't fortunately, that would be a problem.
When Ricky Jenkins and Jay Vincent were good enough to take me home here a few weeks ago, we had a very scholarly discussion. Facetiously, obviously. And we drove across town for about 45 minutes, about the various issues. And in that about 45 minutes, we learned of about 6 things that all three of us didn't agree on. Somebody among the three disagreed on at least six things. Now I'm not going to tell what it was...for some obvious reasons. And I don't think it would be different with any other's here, and if you're going to draw lines any time somebody differs with you on matters of faith there's not a one here gonna fellowship anybody else. Maybe not even your wife. And that's not right. We ought not to be afraid to study...learn some things other brethren don't know, and try to teach them. I think it produces a climate that discourages that. I think that if consistently practiced, the tragedy would be unspeakable. Splinters would be splintered by the hundreds. And maybe they're not practicing it now, but what they're preaching their students will practice. And some of them are practicing it, we can document that. What we need is what the passage was designed for, we need peace. We need the right kind of peace, but a workable, practical peace. Not with gerrymandered lines and absurd inconsistencies. We need a peace with invincibly powerful protection against apostasy. We need peace where the weak and mistaken, conscientious brethren can grow to maturity (unintelligible word). That kind of peace, and I think that's what the passage teaches, and that's what I believe about it.
All right, we will conclude at this point. And do we proceed with questions, or...alright. Some...would it be wise to take a break, they've been sitting awfully patiently...I think its been an hour and fifteen minutes since I started.
Ten minute
break before question and answer period
Tape
transcribed by Stan Cox