Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.  Romans 14:3 

Romans 14:1–4 – Romans: The Righteousness of God
Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost – October 15, 2023 (am)

In a letter like Romans (meaning, such a careful, systematic handling of the gospel followed by its key implications), it’s really interesting to see what topics God’s Spirit moved His apostle to address.

It’s interesting, for instance, to see that a humble self-perception formed according to the spiritual gifting God has given is the primary indicator of a life that’s been offered to Him as a sacrifice and a mind that’s being transformed by His renewing work (12:1-8).

It’s also interesting that our submission to government is tucked in between two charges to love one another sincerely and selflessly (12:9, 14), and even to love [our] enemies (12:20, cf. Mat.5:44).

But it’s also quite interesting that the final teaching in this lengthy treatise (14:1-15:13) focuses on how to accept (nas, niv, nlt) one another in the body of Christ with regard to our differing opinions about what’s acceptable to God and what isn’t.

We’re going to hear from different voices here in c.14. I’m covering vv.1-4; Nick will preach vv.5-9 next Sunday; and Todd will handle vv.10-19 the following week, God willing.

This is a bit of a strange division we’re preaching because this text seems to break down into four pretty discernible sections (14:1-12; 14:13-23; 15:1-6; 15:7-13 [Moo 2018 683]). But the whole (14:1-15:13) is also pretty tight thematically, so I think our outline will give us a good sense of what we should hear from it.

It seems almost certain that this dispute is between Jews and Gentiles (Jews who believe something of the OT dietary laws should continue on into the NT church and Gentiles who don’t). But the charge is to accept (nas, niv, nlt), to welcome one another (14:3; 15:7). This charge begins the section (14:1) and [it’s] repeated again at [the end] (15:7). Paul accentuates the theme of mutuality sounded in this last verse—“[welcome] one another”—with three other “one another” references: [don’t] “pass judgment on one another” (14:13); “let us pursue [what makes for] peace and [for building up one another]” (14:19); “May the God of endurance and [encouragement grant] you [to live in such harmony with] one another[, in accord with] Christ Jesus” (15:5) (Moo 2018 843). So, since this is a theme that runs right through his letter, [w]e should… assume a situation [here] in which Jewish Christians are priding themselves on their strict piety and ‘condemning’ (14:3) those who [don’t] adopt the same standard, while many Gentile Christians, finding no value in such practices, are flaunting their ‘freedom’… (15–22) and ‘judging’ (14:1) [or] ‘looking down on’ (14:3) those whom they consider to be foolishly ‘weak’ about [living into] their freedom in Christ (Moo 1994 1154).

Even so, we should note three things that will become clearer as this section progresses, things that show this as not just an even-handed, back-and-forth dispute. There’s a better-and-worse here, perhaps even a right-and-wrong, that shouldn’t be missed and will surely be helpful to see.

Paul identifies one side of this dispute as weak (14:1, 2; 15:1), even weak in faith (14:1), and the other side as strong (15:1). And he personally identifies with the strong (15:1).

He seems to clarify the key issue for the weak not as OT dietary law per se, but more as a desire to abstain from meat and apparently wine altogether (14:21), which more likely places this concern in the category of fearing that the meat and wine may not meet the ritual requirements of OT law (Moo 2018 877), since both were widely used in pagan religious rituals (Moo 2018 877). So, this dispute is likely quite similar to the one Paul that addressed in Corinth (1Co.8-10), a scenario in which Christians are free.

Paul explicitly stated his view here. He took sides. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Still, the overall charge is to welcome (accept) one another (15:7), and it’s issued directly and equally to both sides (14:1, 3).

Now, one more thing before we walk through this brief passage together. Let’s get in our minds what sort, what kind of difference it is that’s separating these two groups.

First, it seems like it’s more a matter of principle than practicality. In other words, there’s nothing that seems to indicate that any immediate harm will come from eating. The food isn’t poisoned! The choice of eating or not eating isn’t being made on that sort of basis.

Second, though, it’s important enough that each group really does believe the other is doing the wrong thing. And more, each group believes God agrees with them, and that its their loyalty to God on some level that will be compromised if they go soft on the other group.

In previous generations of the church there have been clear issues of this sort that have divided believers: consuming fermented drink, smoking, certain styles of clothing—especially at church: ties and jackets for men, dresses for women (the right length and cut), jeans for everyone!—and different forms of entertainment—dancing, card-playing, in-theatre movies, and other recreational choices.

Different ones of these still linger in different ways today, but rarely to the point of dividing believers like they have in times past. We still have some who are troubled at the casual attire worn in church, or the freedom others exhibit in the beverages they consume or the activities or recreation they select.

But we had a pretty good illustration of the sort of division Paul is addressing over the past couple years during the Covid pandemic: masks! Some thought they should be worn as genuine protection from a new virus of unknown consequence. Others thought they should be worn as a symbol of submission to governing authorities. Still others thought they should be worn as an expression of love for neighbor. But some thought they shouldn’t be worn at all in resistance of government overreach, or because of uncertainty over the protection they actually provided, or due to the psychological and sociological harm they were causing as the very illustration of the isolation we were facing.

We’re still not agreed on who was right and who was wrong, who was strong and who was weak. And the subject itself can still awaken some pretty strong emotions! But that’s what makes it a pretty good example for us to have in mind as we try to enter into the impassioned conflict in this passage, engaging a topic that can incite quarrels over opinions and cause us to despise one another and pass judgment as though giving in is somehow equivalent to being unfaithful to God!

So, are we ready now? Let’s go! We’ll handle vv.1-4 as a unit—no outline.

The Principle 1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him. Welcome means to accept the presence of a person with friendliness—‘to welcome, to receive, to accept, to have as a guest’ (Louw & Nida). It’s not just tolerate him. It’s receive him into your circle, into your home; literally, to welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. Don’t bring him near just to take him apart. Treat him like a welcome guest even if he’s wearing a mask, or not, the opposite of your preference!

The Issue 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Until v.2 here, we didn’t know what sort of dispute was occurring in the Roman church. Now we do. And we’ve already given it a pretty thorough description.

The Problem 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Listen to this quote. Paul’s choice of verbs to describe the attitudes of each group is no doubt deliberate. “Despise” connotes a disdainful, condescending judgment, an attitude that we can well imagine the strong majority, who prided themselves on their enlightened, “liberal,” perspective, taking toward those whom they considered to be foolishly “hung up” on the trivia of a bygone era. The weak, Paul suggests, responded in kind, considering themselves to be the “righteous remnant” who alone upheld true standards of piety and righteousness and who were “standing in judgment” over those who fell beneath these standards (Moo 2018 855). I use the words of another so no one will be led back into the passion of the debate about masks thinking I’m sending implicit signals to anyone in the room! But don’t miss the fact that this is precisely the level of passion subjects like this kick up—ones where we believe God sides with us even though His truth isn’t coming under any threat at all. To finish this quote: Paul calls on each side to stop criticizing the other (Moo 2018 855).

The Question 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? … This question is posed to the weak and the strong all at the same time. Neither of them is honoring God by their response, even though one of them may have been right in their conviction and the other wrong. Both of them are getting corrected, called to account, by this rhetorical question.

The Resolution 4 … It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Just as we saw earlier that vengeance is best left to the Lord (12:19), here we see that judgment in disputable matters is as well. Each of us belongs to the Lord (8), we’ve been bought with a price (1Co.6:20), and ultimately we answer only to Him. The Lord alone is able to convict us and call us to account, to justify us and to save us. And His is the only standard we strive to meet.

Conclusion

No, our theme verse is our calling today: 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. And our call, whichever side we’re on, is the same: welcome (14:1) one another (15:7). 3 Let not the one who [wears a mask] despise the one who [doesn’t], and let not the one who [doesn’t] pass judgment on the one who [does], for God has welcomed him. Both! And right now, if you’re inclined to remind me of what I’ve forgotten, small or great, that locks in whether we should have worn masks, or shouldn’t have, I’m sorry to say it so plainly but, you’re making Paul’s point here! No gospel truth is at stake. Only love of neighbor is being tested. And we’re being enabled by God to see what sort of obstruction (stumbling block [13]) is important enough to us to put in one another’s path and threaten our unity in Christ.

What Paul is calling us to here, though, is to lean hard into the gospel so that nothing of this sort could have the impact that eating and drinking disputes were having in Rome. And what we have seen all along in this letter is that only the love and cleansing and righteousness we receive by faith in Christ can enable and protect this unity. By His grace, then, welcome one another!

 ______________________

Resources

Arnold, Clinton E., gen. ed. 2002. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary. Vol. 3, Romans-Philemon. Romans, by Douglas J. Moo, 2-95. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Barnhouse, Donald Gray. 1952. Romans, four volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Beale, G. K., & D. A. Carson, eds. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Romans, by Mark A. Seifrid, 607-694. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Carson, D. A., R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, & G. J. Wenham, eds. 1994. New Bible Commentary 21st Century Edition. Romans, by Douglas J. Moo, 1115-1160. Leicester, Eng.: InterVarsity.

Chadwick, Henry, gen. ed. 1957. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by C. K. Barrett. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Comfort, Philip W., gen. ed.  2007. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Romans, by Roger Mohrlang. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale.

Cranfield, C. E. B. 1990. Romans: A Shorter Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Dever, Mark. 2005. The Message of the New Testament. Ch. 6, The Message of Romans: Justification, 146-166. Wheaton: Crossway.

Dockery, David S, ed. 1995. New American Commentary. Vol. 27, Romans, by Robert H. Mounce. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Green, Joel B., ed. 2018. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Letter to the Romans, by Douglas J. Moo. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hodge, Charles. 1989. The Geneva Series of Commentaries. Romans. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth.

Hubbard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker. 1988. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 38ab, Romans, by James D. G. Dunn. Dallas: Word.

Longman III, Tremper, & David E. Garland, eds. 2008. Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 11, Romans-Galatians. Romans, by Everett F. Harrison and Donald A. Hagner, 19-237. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. 1996. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies.

Luther, Martin. 1976. Commentary on Romans. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Moo. Douglas J. 2000. The NIV Application Commentary. Romans. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Morris, Leon, ed. 1985. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Vol. 6, Romans, by F. F. Bruce. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Moule, H. C. G. 1977. Studies in Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Murray, John. 1968. The Epistle to the Romans, 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Nygren, Anders. 1949. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Owen, John, ed. Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, by John Calvin. Translated by John Owen.

Sproul, R. C. 2005. The Gospel of God: An Exposition of Romans. Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus.

Stott, John, NT ed. 1994. The Bible Speaks Today. The Message of Romans, by John Stott. Leicester, Eng.: InterVarsity.

Yarbrough, Robert W., and Joshua W. Jipp, eds. 2018. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Romans, by Thomas R. Schreiner. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Zodhiates, Spiros, gen. ed. 1993. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, Revised Edition. Chattanooga: AMG.

NEXT SUNDAY: Romans 14:5–9, Nick Conner