It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.  Romans 14:21 

Romans 14:20–23 – Romans: The Righteousness of God
Twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost – November 5, 2023 (am)  

What a good time we’ve had together studying Romans 14, and really 12-14, in these recent weeks. We’ve taken it in unusual bites, following more of the paragraph flow in our ESV than what we’d label a true exegetical outline of this section of the letter (14:1-15:13). But that has yielded the opportunity to give more focused attention to poignant statements like, it is before [one’s] own master that he stands or falls (4), or if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s (8), or the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (17), or today do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God (20). And surely there are more. This passage is chock-full of such life-principle statements.

And that’s just what we need on this topic because, as we’ve seen since the beginning of c.12, what Paul is teaching us here doesn’t come very naturally or easily to us. In fact, it’s hard for us even to get our minds around much of what he’s told us here—present your bodies as a living sacrifice (12:1) (do we really understand that?); think [of yourselves] according to the measure of faith that God has assigned (12:3) (and not according to any other measure); if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink (12:20); be subject to the governing authorities (13:1) (let love be your motive there, even when resistance might be needed); make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires (13:14); and welcome [the weak], but not to quarrel over opinions (14:1), even though, with Paul, we’re persuaded in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself (14:14). That means, even though we know from Scripture that we’re right, we should still stop short of urging another to honor what’s right, to live it out, to just do it in faith and let their conscience catch up! And we should stop short as an expression of love, because this is a disputable matter. We can differ on how we see it. And that difference is what gives us the setting in which we can test ourselves to see whether we truly love [our] neighbor as we love [ourselves] (13:9), whether we truly love one another more deeply than we love the freedom we have in Christ.

That’s hard for us to understand! And once we understand it, it’s hard for us to hold on to that understanding. It just feels counterintuitive to us that anything can come in ahead of truth in the Christian life! But—now, we need to say this carefully, but we need to say it—love does. Love comes in ahead of truth not in the sense—hear me—of making truth less important, and still less meaning we can lay aside truth as long as we’re being loving. But we can, and must, say two things about love and truth: (1) we must at times suspend our defense of truth for the sake of love (that’s what Paul is teaching us here). 20 … Everything is… clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. There’s something more important than this bare truth, namely, the heart with which we hold it (wield it, apply it, defend it). When a weaker conscience is involved, we suspend our defense of this truth out of love, precisely because how we view clean and unclean is a disputable matter. We can each think differently about it, not at all meaning the truth that everything is clean becomes untrue, but meaning that, for a wide variety of reasons, it’s not a truth that everyone understands equally well. It’s not a truth that everyone can immediately (perhaps ever) embrace with a clear conscience. So, instead of affirming and insisting on the truth, this is one of the places where we [bear] with one another in love, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph.4:2-3). That leads us to: (2) Love must envelop our expression of truth because love is what prioritizes competing truths, especially with regard to disputable matters. And this is not new. We know that even if [we] speak in the tongues of… angels, [even if we] have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, [even if we] have all faith, so [that we can] remove mountains, but [don’t have] love, [we’re] nothing. [We] gain nothing. [We’re] a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. [We can even be a martyr for the faith], but [if we don’t have] love, [we’ve achieved] nothing (1Co.13:1-3).

This is a deep truth from God’s Word. It’s hard to grasp and even harder to retain. But this is what Christianity looks like. This is the love that Jesus modeled for us. He displays this very sort of humble, gentle, patient love toward us and we see that in this very text. 15:1 We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves but because that’s what Jesus did for us. 2 Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For Christ did not please himself. He didn’t use His position as the stronger brother to gratify (or even satisfy) Himself (cf. Phi.2:5-8), but He laid down his life (assuming the guilt) for those who were not only weak in their faith but dead in their sin, as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.”

Today’s passage finishes off Paul’s instruction on this kind of love that should characterize our relationships with one another in the body of Christ before adding in the [unity] (15:5-6) that’s facilitated by such a mature expression of love. This is a brief paragraph. It’s been referenced in each of the three sermons in c.14 so far, so we’re a bit familiar with it. But because this simple, clear, familiar passage is so challenging for Christians to grasp, and process, and retain, we’re going to give one final voice to this concluding paragraph (of 1-23 and 13-23). Let’s walk through it as a single thought-unit.

Walking Through the Text

Paul opens this mini-conclusion (subtotal) with a direct charge. 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Wow, that’s strong. In short, though, if we fail to envelop in love our understanding of truth with regard to disputable matters, we are working against the gospel. We’re impeding the work of the Holy Spirit. We’re destroying the work of God. And we’re doing it only for the sake of food, so that we can enjoy the freedom we have in Christ and not be hindered by the sensitivity a brother or sister feels about that food. But that’s not the way it should be! Paul explained this point more fully and directly in his first letter to Corinth: 9561Co.8:8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. So, the strong person in Romans 14 is indeed right. But food just isn’t the issue! Self-sacrificing love for the sensitive brother or sister is the issue—or we might say, love from one who’s presented [his] body as a living sacrifice is the issue. Paul continues: 9 … take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? Note that the problem here is not identified as the weaker one eating in violation of his conscience, but as his seeing you eating such that he may be encouraged to eat in violation of his conscience. 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed (same root), the brother for whom Christ died. So, Jesus has died for his sin but we can’t excuse his weakness? 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Same here: 20 … Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.

Bottom line, we need to recognize that: 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. Caring for my brothers and sisters in Christ is more important to me than my own gratification. Setting aside the expression of my own legitimate freedom in Christ in order to keep you not just from violating your conscience, but even from being put in a place where your conscience is unexpectedly tested, is one of the ways that I show my love for you and protect the [unity] of the body. That’s what Paul, here, calls good. That’s right. It’s true, even in light of other things that are mentioned here as true.

And that is so because of something else we recognize here about truth. Without even beginning to undercut absolute truths like the holiness of God and the deity of Christ, there are some truths that vary from situation to situation in how we express or exercise them. Eating meat and drinking wine right here are two of those. It’s surely true that everything is clean (20). But it’s still wrong to eat meat or drink wine in certain situations, not because either of these activities becomes sinful in itself, but because they’re sinful for some and not for others, based on each one’s conscience. That’s what our final verse is telling us: 23 … whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. It’s sin for the weaker brother but not for the stronger! So, the one whose conscience is strong should joyfully limit his freedom as an expression of love for any whose conscience is weak. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It’s about enjoying God and living for His glory, like we really do delight in Him and not just in the many good gifts, the freedoms, He gives us. 1Co.10:31 So, whether [we] eat or drink, or whatever [we] do, [we]do all to the glory of God.

The instruction we should hear then, is what Paul says to the strong, since that’s all of us here! 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God, not meaning, don’t share your faith, but more like, don’t flaunt your freedom (cf. Moo 2018 879). Don’t feel the need to draw your weaker brother or sister along by displaying your freedom in front of them, reminding them that they, too, could be enjoying this meat, this wine. Correction is not the primary aim here, even though our consciences can strengthen and grow. Forbearing, joyfully self-sacrificing love is the primary calling here, even if that means I will never eat meat again (1Co.813). That’s what brings glory to God. And that’s Paul’s word here in a statement that I believe is made to the strong and the weak alike. V.22b finishes his statement to the strong (22a) and it introduces his statement to the weak (23), making it a sort of hinge statement in this passage. 22 … Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.

It’s pretty clear how this applies to the weak. If they eat or drink in violation of conscience, they [have] reason to pass judgment on [themselves] for what [they’ve] approved.

But it can escape us how this applies to the strong. And it shouldn’t! In short, if the strong do not keep between [themselves] and God the faith that [they] have—if they flaunt their freedom before the weak, not just potentially leading them into the sin of indulgence in violation of conscience but I would say by putting them in the place where their weakness is spotlighted, forcing them to make a decision either to reaffirm and strengthen their commitment to their weakness or to violate their conscience by acting like the strong—then in this situation the strong one now has reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. He’s chosen to express his freedom rather his love for God and for his weaker brother, and in so doing is destroying the work of God for the sake of food (20). God, help us not to do that!

Conclusion

Brothers and sisters, please do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food, or any other expression of freedom. And even as I say this so directly (as Paul did), please know that I, the Elders, believe we as a body are doing very well in this area in many ways. We’re addressing this matter, and pressing on it hard, not because we see it as a problem among us so much as because this is the passage that teaches these things most comprehensively. And even though it’s an area of such profound importance to protecting the unity of the body, it’s so easy to forget it, to let it slip, to begin thinking, then acting, differently.

We just need to be so diligent to protect this deep, rich, mature, uniquely Christian expression of love among us. We need to guard against the ever-present temptation to let any of our favorite truths take on the nature of absolute truth such that we begin to hold one another accountable to it in our relationships within this body.

And you know what’s amazing about this expression of love? The ones closest to us, the ones we love most deeply, are the ones we’re most inclined to hold to our personal standard(s) of truth. It’s this kind of commitment that can drive a wedge between husbands and wives as they establish and grow their life together, decide on the priorities and values of their home, set and enforce behavioral standards for their children.

Here at church the same is true. It’s the ones were growing to love as family with whom it’s so hard for us to tolerate differing ideas in matters we hold to strongly: how we should educate our children, whether we should get up with them at night when they cry, whether we should be inoculated, against which diseases. Politics is another category. It is just so easy to get ourselves to the place where our political convictions are so interwoven with our faith that it can almost feel wrong to express even gospel love for someone who thinks differently. And the closer that person is to us, the harder that can become!

These are the areas where we should be examining our hearts and holding on to these truths.

 ___________________

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.

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.

NEXT SUNDAY: Let Each of Us Please His Neighbor, Romans 15:1–6