Down an Unfamiliar Road

YOU DIDN’T KNOW I WAS LOOKING

I read this story about a woman who was standing in front of the casket, viewing her dear departed mother. She was so choked up she couldn’t talk. Her handkerchief was already soaked with tears as she looked into her mother’s beautiful but peaceful face. Later on, she decided to write down the thoughts that were going through her mind, and here is what she penned:

I saw you place my first finger-painting on the refrigerator, and I immediately wanted to paint another one.

…I saw you feed a stray cat, and I learned that it was good to be kind to animals.

…I saw you make my favorite cake for me and I learned that little things can be the special things in life.

…I heard you say a prayer, and I knew there was a God I could always talk to and I learned to trust in Him.

…I saw you make a meal and take it to a friend who was sick, and I learned that we all have to help take care of each other.

…I saw you give of your time and money to help people who had nothing and I learned that those who have something should give to those who don’t.

…I remember when you would kiss me good night and I felt loved and safe.

…I saw you take care of our house and everyone in it and I learned we must do our best to take care of what we are given.

…I saw how you handled your responsibilities, even when you didn’t feel good and I learned that I would have to be responsible when I grow up.

…I saw tears come from your eyes and I learned that sometimes things hurt, but it’s all right to cry.

…I saw that you cared and I wanted to be everything that I could be.

…I learned most of life’s lessons that I needed to know on how to be good and productive person when I grow up.

…looked at you lying there and wanted to say, “Thanks for all the things I saw you do when you didn’t know I wasn’t looking.”

When I finished reading this touching story, a thought flashed through my mind. I wondered if when we stand before Jesus on Judgment Day if He too would look at us and say, I saw you give someone who was hungry something to eat. I saw you give water to someone who was thirsty before they even asked for it. I watched you take boxes of clothes to the Salvation Army for people who had little to wear. I saw you go visit someone who was sick and spent time taking care of them. I even saw you read in the newspaper that a run-away teen had been arrested and put in jail and that there was no one in town to visit her. So you went to visit her and have prayer with her. Then Jesus said to you, I want to let you know, that what you did for them you were doing for Me.¹ Yes, I saw all the things you did in My name even when you didn’t know I was looking. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XX)

On one Sabbath day, Jesus was invited in to have a meal at one of the leading Pharisee’s house. While waiting for the meal to be served, Jesus asked his host if he invited only friends to such an occasion, or did he sometimes have people just come in off the street because if he did, God would pay him back on at the resurrection, Someone reclining at the table with Jesus heard this, they stated enthusiastically: “How blessed are those who eat bread in the Kingdom of God!”¹ But Jesus had one revelation He wanted everyone to know about this Kingdom of God: “The Kingdom of God will not come with visible signs; nor will people be able to say, ‘Look! Here it is!’ or, ‘Over there!’ Because, you see, the Kingdom of God is already among you.”² In other words, it is a spiritual kingdom. That’s why Jesus told Nicodemus: “I tell you that unless a person is born-again from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God… And unless a person is born from water³ and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. ”⁴

It was very important to Paul that the Roman believers also knew exactly what the Kingdom of God was all about. Perhaps he was reminded of when he was told that some self-styled experts had gone to Corinth and were telling everyone how they thought real Christians should live. So Paul wrote the church in Corinth and told them: “If the Lord allows me to, I will come to visit you. I will find out when I come if these proud people have God’s power, or if they just use a lot of big words. The Kingdom of God is not a matter of words but of power.”⁵ One does not stray into the Kingdom of God, nor do they gain entrance out of the sheer luck of being in the right place at the right time. Paul also did not mince words when he wrote the Thessalonians: “We told you with strong words that you should live to please God. He is the One Who chose you to come into His Kingdom and to share His shining-greatness.”⁶

We can gather from this, that with Gentiles and Jews fellowshipping in many churches throughout the known world in Paul’s day, that the customs and manners in which they were raised were always subjects that caused a lot of discussions and no doubt disagreements. The writer of Hebrews had to tell his readers: “Do not let the many strange teachings lead you the wrong way. Our hearts are made strong by God’s loving-favor. Food does not make our hearts strong. Those who obey Laws about eating certain foods are not helped by them.”⁷ Paul told the Corinthians: “God Himself made the way so you can have new life through Christ Jesus. God gave us Christ to be our wisdom.”⁸ Paul had good advice for the Philippians. He told them Christ had revealed to him that he could not be right with God by what the Law told him to do, but he was made right with God by what Christ told him to do.⁹

The Apostle Peter was also aware of how much sway the words and writings of church leaders had on those out in the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire. So he started his second letter to them by letting them know that he knew this letter was going to people who shared the same faith as he did, faith that was of such great value that no amount of money could purchase it. He wrote: “This faith comes from our God and Jesus Christ, the One Who saves. May you have more and more of His loving-favor and peace as you come to know God and our Lord Jesus Christ better.”¹⁰ God’s Kingdom was to be known as a kingdom of peace that was inhabited with peacemakers. Not peacemakers who only made peace with the world, but with each other. That’s why Jesus told His disciples that even though they would encounter only trouble and tribulations in this world, that everything He taught was designed to bring them peace of mind and peacefulness to their souls.¹¹

There was nothing that brought Paul more peace of mind than when he got the news that the churches were working together to spread the Good News about the Messiah and the Kingdom of God. That’s why he wrote the Philippians telling them that if they were strong because they belong to Christ; if His love brought them comfort; if they had joy in their gifts from the Holy Spirit; if they had loving-kindness and compassion for each other, that he shared their joy by knowing that they all think the same way. He told them to keep exercising the same love. Be as one in thought and action.¹²

Paul also commended the Philippians as follows: “Be full of joy always because you belong to the Lord. Again I say, be full of joy! Let all people see how gentle you are. The Lord is coming again soon. Do not worry. Learn to pray about everything. Give thanks to God as you ask Him for what you need. The peace of God is much greater than the human mind can understand. This peace will keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.”¹³ Paul was convinced of the fact that Christians may try all they want to get along with and become friends with the world so that they would suffer less persecution and ridicule, but it will not work. Jesus made it clear, we ARE NOT of this world,¹⁴ meaning the secular system, human philosophy, situational ethics, and corrupt virtues by which sinners lived and moved and had their being.¹⁵ Christ told Pilate: “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”¹⁶

On the topic of righteousness not being found in what we eat or drink, early church leader Origen points out that just as there is no marriage in heaven,¹⁷ so is there no eating and drinking there either. All that will be over and done with and will have no place in God’s presence. Rather, there will be pure morality and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Because of this, Origen believes that Paul is urging everyone to concentrate on spiritual things, realizing that it has already been placed in our souls here below which we will take with us when we go into the heavenly kingdom. Peace and holy living and whatever else we are given by the Holy Spirit will be our food and drink in the Kingdom of Heaven.¹⁸ It is clear that as far back as the second-century theologians knew that no earthly body would be taken to live in heaven.

Pelagius joins the others in making the point that we are not justified by what foods we eat. He also points out that Paul did not say that fasting and abstinence are not part of the Kingdom of God but rather food and drink. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are more easily maintained when we stop depending on what others have to give in order to bring us contentment. For where there is righteousness (by loving one’s neighbor as oneself) there is also peace, and where there is peace there is also spiritual joy. This helps us avoid the distress and trouble that arises out of discord.¹⁹ Bishop Theodore writes somewhat humorously: “We ought to laugh at those who think that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink [in the Kingdom of Heaven] when Paul’s words so clearly say the opposite.”²⁰

Martin Luther sees more here in what Paul is saying than it being just a dispute over what is permissible or not permissible for a Christian to eat or drink. He takes those who insist on their spiritual rights as wanting to claim the Kingdom of God for themselves. Such people are willing to disturb the harmony and peace among church members just to satisfy their own likes or dislikes. Luther feels that this is unacceptable because such things are not essential to God’s Kingdom thriving here on earth. Our joy, says Luther, is in being filled with the Holy Spirit, not certain foods and drinks. That is what brings us peace and joy because we are right with God. As Luther sees it, nothing disturbs peace more than the offence or resentment which is shown to a fellow believer, especially in matters violating their conscience.²¹ Could this be what Jesus was referring to when He said: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the true children of God?”²²

John Calvin has several interesting things to say about Paul’s statement here. First, he notes that Paul is teaching us that we can abstain from using our liberty without any feeling of loss because the Kingdom of God is all about greater things than what we want or think we need. Furthermore, those things needed to either build up or to preserve the Kingdom of God are by no means to be neglected, even though someone may not totally agree on how or why they are implemented. If it is considered lawful to abstain from certain meats, this should have no negative effect on the harmony of the Church’s members as long as God’s honor is uninjured; while Christ’s kingdom suffers no harm, and our faith in Him is not hindered.

Calvin then goes on to share that by connecting peace and joy together, it seems to him that Paul is expressing the characteristics of joy. It doesn’t matter how quiet or loud those who are not happy about the way things are being done express themselves. Some won’t be joyful or have peace of mind until God lets them have their way. However, no joy will come to them unless it is first preceded by peace. And Calvin notes that although it would have been nice had Paul declared that the Holy Spirit was the author of what he was saying, nevertheless, it is clear that the Holy Spirit inspired him to point out that God is less concerned with external things than He is that we might know that the things which belong to the Kingdom of God will continue to operate in our lives with or without such foods.²³

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XIX)

Charles Hodge follows a similar line of thinking by noting that even though the thing being done is right in itself, yet if indulging in it becomes injurious to a fellow Christian believer, that indulgence is a violation of the Law of Love. Following the Law of Love is one of the firsts things the Apostle Paul urges the congregation in Rome to consider. They should always be careful not to put a stumbling block in their fellow believer’s pathway. Paul’s use of the Greek verb lypeō (“grieved” in KJV), which means: “to make someone feel sad or heartbroken at what they see being done.” It causes them grief because it offends their conscience. Therefore, if a fellow believer becomes emboldened by another believer’s example and is led into doing what they think is wrong by their standards, it will end up making them feel sad and miserable. This is caused by the fact that this person’s conscience was injured by letting this other person lead them astray, and they didn’t care.¹

In his notes, Albert Barnes touches on this sensitive subject that has plagued the Church throughout its history with embarrassing blood stains for all the world to see. There have been times when one branch of Christianity has used their Christian liberty to speak out against and make unkind remarks about one another so that it produced contention and strife. This gave the Church’s opponents all the ammunition they needed to fire off shots at the “holier than thou” branch who had the tendency of preaching love but practicing loathing. They circulated rumors containing damming reports for the world to read about such behavior. How much strife both in and outside the Church could have been avoided if all Christians had high regard for the Law of Love in relation to their spiritual and moral standards in the church? While one group may consider their view to be right, they should not by any hardheaded enforcement on others only give rise to contention and angry discussions.²

Charles Ellicott also addresses an insight that Henry Alford mentions. Alford says that by Paul first speaking of offending and then destroying, he is making a big difference between a small offence and the great damage that can result. For Alford, even a tiny act that causes grief to a brother or sister in Christ is an offence against love. How much greater is the offence then if this grieving ends up destroying the faith they already had?³ Ellicott further explains that there are two stages implied in the words “grieve” and “destroy.” When a weak believer sees a strong believer do that which their own conscience condemns, it causes them anxiety, but when they are further led on from this to do it themselves, their conscience condemns them and they are in danger of a worse fate. This can lead to their being morally and spiritually crippled. The work of redemption that Christ has wrought for them is in danger of being canceled, and all those great and beneficial promises taken out of their hands by an act of thoughtlessness or lack of consideration on the part of a fellow Christian.⁴

In his Bible Study, H. A. Ironside advises believers that are weak in faith, that is, those whose immature or uninstructed consciences cause them to be troubled by things that may seem small to others, are to be welcomed and embraced as being a genuine Christian. They should not be judged for their questionings or doubtful thoughts. This principle is a most far-reaching one and indicates the breadth of Christian love that should prevail over the spirit of legality into which it is so easy to fall. Some believers find it hard to explore the Christian privileges provided in the Gospel. Nevertheless, all those who are children of God are to be recognized as fellow-members of the Body, and unless living in open wickedness, to be accorded their blood-bought place in the Christian family. Wickedness and weakness are not to be confused. The wicked person is to be shunned,⁵ but the weak believer is to be received and protected.⁶

Karl Barth gives this very eloquent paraphrase for us to always keep in mind of what Paul is saying here: “By forgetting the brother in my fellow men, the One in the other, Christ in the neighbor, in the weakness of the neighbor – I walk no longer in love, I am justified neither by the possibility that they may be right nor by the fact that God is right… Christ died for him, and I – [eat what distresses him!] This is the ridiculous impossibility of my most possible possibility: this is the wrong of my supreme right. No triumphant freedom of conscience, no triumphant faith to eat all things justifies me, if, at the moment of my triumph, I have seated myself upon the throne of God and am myself preparing stumbling-blocks and occasions of falling instead of making room for God’s action. Gone then are my faith and my freedom, and all my knowledge is as though I knew nothing.”⁷

John Stott poses some questions that we all need to ask ourselves whenever a lesser informed believer finds something we are doing objectionable because it goes against their conscience. We should begin with the fact that since Christ loved them enough to die for them, should we not love them enough to refrain from wounding their conscience? Another thing to consider is since Christ sacrificed Himself for their well-being, should we then assert ourselves and do them harm? Furthermore, since Christ died to save them, should we not be careful not to do something that may end up losing them? But Stott is not finished. He has read and heard of many Bible scholars and teachers say that the destruction Paul speaks of here more or less means sending them to hell because of our unwillingness to come to an agreement for their sake.

Stott is not hesitant to object and states four reasons why he would disagree with such an attitude that one small offence against a believer would end up sending them to hell. First, are we really to believe that a Christian believer’s single act against their own conscience – which in many cases is not their fault but the fault of a strong who have misled them, and which is, therefore, it was an unintentional mistake, not a deliberate disobedience – will bring upon them eternal condemnation? No! A fiery hell is reserved only for the devil, his fallen angels, the stubborn, the unrepentant, and those individuals who willfully persist in sinning against God and His Word. Secondly, such a view (the eternal destruction of a fellow believer) is inconsistent with the doctrine of final perseverance, which the Apostle Paul has eloquently expressed here in Romans,⁸ affirming that absolutely nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. The hallmark of every authentic brother or sister in Christ is that he or she will, by God’s steadfast love, persevere to the end as long as they depend on Him as their Savior.

Thirdly, Paul writes, in verse 15, that the strong are capable of damaging a weak believer’s conscience, but Jesus said that God Himself is the only one who can and will damn people in hell.⁹ Fourthly, the context in what Paul says here in verses 15-16 demands a different interpretation of “destroy.” Paul uses the Greek verb apollymi which has a broad spectrum of meanings which range from “killing” to “abolishing”. Paul contrasts “destroy” with “edification,” which means to “build up”.¹⁰ Therefore, Paul warns the strong believer not to mislead the weak believer in going against their consciences because it may do serious damage to advancing their Christian walk with Christ. He urges the strong, do not allow what you consider good (namely, the liberty you have found in Christ) to be spoken evil of all because you flaunted it to the detriment of the weak.¹¹

Jewish scholar David Stern points to the Jewish writings as a possible source for what Paul learned and what he is passing on here to the Romans, especially the Jewish members of the congregation. In the Talmud, we read where Rabbi Johanan was discussing with other Rabbis whether what the Written Law said could also apply to the oral laws written by the Rabbis? His conclusion was, “Yes. Even if something was taught as permissible, yet some treat them as prohibited, you must not allow them to be done in their presence because it is written, “he shall not break his vow”¹².¹³ Stern says that when someone is in bondage to rules to the point that anything outside those restrictions would be considered bad, we should not flaunt our freedom to do as we wish.¹⁴

14:17  In God’s kingdom, what we eat and drink is not important. Here is what is important: a right way of living in peace and joy – all which come from the Holy Spirit.

Now Paul teaches the believers in Rome that they must prioritize what are the most important things in their lives, and this is not “self,” but “selflessness.” This was the main theme of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.¹⁵ It’s like a person driving on the highway where they must not only keep their eyes on the road but be very aware of those coming and going and those around them. They must be conscious of the fact that every turn they make has the potential of affecting them all, either for the good or for disaster. We all know there are few things that frustrate us any more than drivers who change lanes without signaling; pull out in front of us without looking left or right; who suddenly cross from the far left lane into the far right lane seconds before exiting, or race through a red light. So it is in life. There are people all around us, and what we say and do can have a positive or negative effect on them. This is especially true of our fellow believers.

These are not temporary tenets or ethics. Daniel was told: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed. And it will never be taken by another people. It will outlast and bring an end to all these nations because it will stand forever.”¹⁶ That’s why when John the Baptizer came he had this message: “Repent for your sins and turn from them! The Holy Kingdom of Heaven is near.”¹⁷ John the Baptizer went on to say that this new Kingdom of God would be established by Yeshua, the one spoken of by the Prophet Isaiah.¹⁸ And Jesus was not hesitant in letting it be known that people should reorganize their lives so that they put the Kingdom of God first in their thoughts and deeds.¹⁹ Yes, we are all on the Highway of Holiness,²⁰ but we abide by God’s rules, not ours.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XVIII)

On the theme of not speaking badly about what others consider good, and thereby causing weak believers to stumble, early church scholars have much to say. Chrysostom is impressed that Paul has, in the name of love, given the weak so much space in which to make a decision. It was his intention to persuade those weak believers in Rome, in the same way, Yeshua persuaded him to comprehend the freedoms they have in Christ. For even though he had been freed from his own fears, he does not want to drag these Roman believers kicking and screaming to the altar for repentance. His goal is to let them make such decisions on their own. He also wanted the strong believers to realize that abstaining from certain foods they deem permissible is not in the same category as seriously injuring somebody by going ahead and eating them in spite of the other believer’s convictions. They must value their fellow Christians enough to forego their own freedoms at the price of abstaining from certain types of foods in order not to offend them and cause them to go against their conscience. After all, Christ did not refuse to become a servant and even to die for them so why should they not be willing to give up a particular piece of meat in order to give their undecided fellow believer piece of mind?¹

I like what early church writer Gennadius had to say about this. He was amazed at how skillfully Paul develops his argument. He starts off by referring to the dispute over certain foods as “unimportant.” However, he then promptly refers to the person who insulted a fellow believer as a brother. He calls what has been done to the weaker individual as being “destructive.” He then points out that no insulting behavior should be committed against someone “for whom Christ died.” He implies that someone who does this causes “godliness to be blasphemed.” Finally, he notes that we have not come to faith in Christ in order to enjoy this or that but “in order to be able to stay right with God” by doing what He said, not what we think it should be. That means we can have love, peace, and joy in our hearts because of our relationship with Christ as well as with our fellow believers.²

Also, Origen asked how was it possible for what is good to us to be spoken of as evil by others who disagree with us? Paul’s words, “What is good for you,” refers here to what is permitted according to the spiritual interpretation of the Law. We should not depend, therefore, on the ungodly and foolish teachings of heretics and those engaged in spreading their personal philosophy concerning unclean and polluted foods. However, notes Origen, a Jew for example, or one of the so-called Encratites,³ might think that in order to believe in Christ it is necessary to practice celibacy or abstain from certain types of food. They might even quote Scripture in support of this notion. If anyone insists that in order for a person to be saved or to come to Christ they must agree to eat everything, including foods from which they prefer to abstain, or not eat many of the things they are absolutely comfortable in eating, then they are blaspheming the good element in the Spiritual Law. By ordering such restrictions on new converts it will cause them to think that eating or abstaining from such foods is an essential part of their faith, when in fact it is a small matter to the whole Body of Christ.⁴

Martin Luther strikes the right cord when commenting on what Paul says here. He wonders why anyone would choose such a trivial matter as food to show disrespect for a fellow believer in complete disregard for their eternal salvation. In his mind, one believer might understand the decision of another believer if it was made on account of certain things being affordable, or as a way to protect the welfare of their body or any other matter that is more important to them than certain foods. For food merely serves to meet a momentary benefit and for enjoyment. That’s why the Apostle uses such sharp words to rebuke and reprimand any lack of love on the part of those who look with contempt upon a fellow believer on account of certain foods.⁵

During the early years of the Pentecostal movement in the United States, while there was very little, if any controversy over foods there were other matters that were given high priority in the debate over whether one was saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Among them were the length of a woman’s hair and dress, the wearing of jewelry (including the wedding ring), playing cards (including Old Maids), going to see motion pictures, dancing, modesty of dress (mostly for women), attending baseball or football games, etc. Disputes over these matters not only caused disharmony among congregants but often resulted in splits in churches and even denominations. Apparently, what the Apostle Paul said here, was not the subject of many sermons or theological discussions.

As a result of such ultra-conservative dogmas and strict orthodox practices, many who might have been persuaded that being a Christian was the best God could offer were instead turned away and saw no reason to seek salvation. Luther touches on this as well when he points out that the Apostle Paul calls something “good” because of being persuaded by Christ that it was good. Luther believer that Paul is really saying here is that Christians should be careful that the people of the world have some reason make fun of their faith, their religion, and their whole Christian lifestyle over such trivial matters. Instead, the way we live for Christ should be attractive because the joy and peace it brings, and by the wonderful changes it makes in a believer’s life. Luther then goes on to reference what Paul said to the Corinthians: “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path so that our ministry will not be discredited,”⁶ and also later to the Romans: “Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone.⁷”⁸

John Calvin also talks about how we can make the best use of good things to encourage a weaker brother rather than using bad things to embarrass or dishearten them. For Calvin, the first thing to be aware of is that love is violated when a Christian brother or sister is made to grieve over something so unimportant to their salvation. He reminds the believers in Rome that such an attitude and action is contrary to God’s love when they cause grief to anyone. Furthermore, when the weak believer’s conscience is wounded and they turn away from Christ, the price of His blood might end up being wasted. After all, even for the person we like the least has been redeemed by the blood of Christ. That’s why it is a heinous crime to destroy them just to gratify one’s stomach or list of “do’s” and “don’ts”. In addition, when such a believer makes the eating or abstaining from certain foods precious to them, that are making Christ worthless with their attitude. And finally, since the liberty attained for us by Christ is a blessing we ought to take care in how we apply such liberty so that those who may disagree with us cannot say uncomplimentary things we are responsible for saying, or about how we are supposedly live for Christ in spite of our questionable behavior. Flaunting such trivial liberties is an unreasonable use of God’s gifts. Such reasoning ought to influence our thinking so that we don’t end up thoughtlessly causing others to lose faith in us and our words and actions.⁹

John Bengel says that liberty is a privilege for believers since it flows from being part of the kingdom of God.¹⁰ But when we recklessly misuse such liberty, it is an abuse of our freedom in Christ. In the writings of our early church scholars, the Lord’s Supper is usually put forward as a good and respected ordinance. This is indeed not inconsistent with what Paul is saying here in verses 15 and 16,¹¹ In other words, if a person participates in eating the bread and drinking the wine in communion even after they have offended someone by their liberal actions, they are abusing their privilege of being invited to the Lord’s table with them. However, in this case, Paul is speaking about being dismissive or critical of a weak believer just to show how spiritually strong we may think we are. Remember, that same person is trying to deal with your liberty because they see it as a sign of irresponsibility on your part. This does very little in encouraging them on what they can do for the glory of God.¹²

Robert Haldane feels that true love will prevent any believer from doing anything to cause discontent and disappointment to another, especially those who are considered the stronger of the two. A stronger believer should always be ready to exercise self-denial. When any believer refuses to abstain from gratifying their own appetite to avoid hurting a fellow believer, it shows that they are deficient in love. Haldane goes on to say that what may be permissible to a strong Christian might be considered a sin to a weak Christian, and if the strong Christian’s example induces the weak believer to follow suit, it could lead them into feeling condemned. Haldane wants every believer to take into consideration that since Christ died for the weak believer, how un-Christlike it is a strong believer to continue doing what they know might destroy a fellow believer. Especially, if they were to follow their example without knowing why it’s being done or what it’s being done for! The love Christ had in giving His life for this weak believer is contrasted by this other person’s actions in spite of their objections and shows how disrespectful they are being to them.¹³

Haldane feels that Paul was championing the liberty that Christians have in Christ. After all, look at the privilege given to them to disregard the old Jewish distinctions made concerning certain meats in the legal and ceremonial laws. This is a good thing to them because the Law was in itself a yoke and a grievous burden. They were doing what was good and right in itself in using this liberty. However, they should be careful to use it in such a way that it does not become a stumbling block to those who are less informed about how Christ fulfilled the law, and that by being in Him the law is fulfilled for us. This points to a decisive distinction between the dispensation of Christ and that of Moses. It was an advantage to be delivered from the peculiar restraints of ceremonial laws, but it would be of no advantage if it ended up causing a weak believer to lose faith in what Christ has already done in their lives. This shows the sovereignty of God in subjecting His people in one dispensation to carrying burdens which He removes in a later dispensation.¹⁴ Yet, such liberty should not be exploited if it might mean the loss of faith and falling away of a weak believer.¹⁵

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XVII)

In the opening of one of his sermons, Charles Spurgeon notes that Mosaic Law attached great importance to meats and drinks while the Christian Gospel attaches none. The Apostle Peter was shown by a vision of a sheet being let down from heaven, not only that all nations were now to receive the Gospel message, but that all kinds of foods were now clean, and that all the prohibitions which had forbidden them to eat such unclean foods for legal purposes, were now once and for all withdrawn. Christians may, if they feel comfortable in doing so, put themselves under restrictions as to these foods for dietary or health purposes. But they should never count them as earning merits with God that will enhance their salvation through Christ.

Spurgeon reminds us that the Apostle Paul clearly said that he came to the conclusion on whether foods were clean or unclean by what the Lord Jesus revealed to him and that there is nothing unclean in and of itself. This means, that individuals on their own can determine anything to be unclean or clean for their use in honoring God. There are some who have decided to use a certain rug to kneel on when they pray. Once their prayers are finished they roll it up and put away so that it is never used for anything else. But for them to insist that every other believer should follow their example is an overreach of what they consider their authority to decide for themselves. This is not a decision related to salvation. Spurgeon says that it is quite possible that Paul was aiming his words at those with easily offended consciences. But Spurgeon feels that Paul could have taken his discussion in another direction.

In fact, Spurgeon suggest that Paul could have easily said something like this: If you are dead with Christ and free from being dictated to by what the world thinks, but now that you are alive through Christ, why would you still want to think like the world? To do so would be the same as taking simple ideas and dogmatizing them into church teachings such as: don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t go here, don’t go there, don’t eat this, don’t eat that, etc. The doctrine of the Final Covenant has expressly laid down that “since everything God created is good, we should not reject any of it but receive it with thanks.”¹ Also, look at the common sense practice Paul offered the believers: “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be dominated by anything.” In the example offered by Paul, we have full liberty. He felt no need to ban certain things on everyone’s conscience.²

Pentecostal scholar Douglas Moo gives his understanding of what Paul is advocating here. For him, while the strong have the theory right, they must come to grips with how to put it into practice. Although God now pronounces all foods to be kosher, people who have always believed that avoiding certain foods is necessary to maintain their holiness, have had trouble in internalizing this new perspective. They may not be convinced – at least emotionally and psychologically – that they can eat anything. For them, certain foods are still “unclean.”³ So respect their decision and don’t start pushing them to change. God, in His time, through the Holy Spirit, through His Word, and the example of others will bring them around in due season.

It is easy for some Christians to extrapolate this concept on food into other areas such as entertainment, games, music, motion pictures, etc. We can consider those things to fall under the Doctrine of Holiness. But holiness is not what we do to conform ourselves to some teaching demanded by the church. Holiness involves being sanctified in order to give our total dedication to the Lord for His work. For instance, being called into the ministry is a form of holy living. Then whatever the Holy Spirit convinces the person called to do as part of that calling will determine what they pledge themselves to do or not to do. But it is only for themselves.

Jewish writer David Stern gives us his perception from a Jewish perspective on this. He doesn’t see Paul espousing moral relativism⁴ or situational ethics.⁵ His remarks have nothing to do with human behavior but with ritual considerations. It is not surprising that Paul, having alluded in the previous verse to Leviticus 19, a chapter full of commandments, about ritual uncleanliness continues with a declaration on that subject. It is, nevertheless, a surprising conclusion for a Jewish scholar, such as himself who sat at the feet of Rabban Gamli’el, to reach. Indeed, he had to be persuaded by Yeshua the Messiah Himself. For the concept of ritual uncleanliness pervades the Jewish Mishnah. In one of its six major divisions, the tractate Taharot (“Ritual Cleanliness”), deals with this as its central topic, as does the Torah (the Pentateuch), especially in Leviticus, chapters 11 through 17.

The First Covenant does not always explain why some things are considered pure and others not. Hygiene is not the main issue. If it were, there would be no reason to exclude Gentiles from the application of these Laws. And the Rabbis do not speculate much on the reasons why. And since the Laws of ritual purity apply only to Jews, the statement that nothing is unclean in itself should suffice to free any Christian Gentile whose conscience still bothers them with regard to such matters. As for Jews, even in Rabbinic Judaism, most of the purity Laws gradually fell into disuse over time.⁶

Another Jewish scholar has quite a bit to say on this subject. He believes that it is critical to keep in mind that this is all said here by Paul in a historical context. This involves early Gentile converts to Christianity who had little understanding of, or regard for, the customs of the Jews – especially the Synagogue Jews who did not follow Yeshua. Also important to remember when studying this section is the greater context of Paul’s teachings regarding Gentiles coming to faith without having to become Jews first, that means, to learn and abide by all that the Torah has to say, especially about circumcision. Therefore, while Paul will not tell Gentile believers they must act as Jews in all ways, he does teach them the principle of deferring to God’s higher law brought into the world by His Son Yeshua, concerning these First Covenant practices of the Jewish people. They must first be convinced of their freedom in Christ before they can feel free from the legal and ceremonial laws of Judaism.

The issue here is not one of “kosher Laws” or the “Sabbath” being done away with. The context is the issue of the code of conduct taught in Jewish Synagogues on certain issues and how Gentiles following Yeshua do not practice them, yet they must respect their Jewish brethren who do. There is no question of whether or not a pig is kosher, or the Sabbath was the day God set aside for His people. Those things are clearly spelled out in God’s Torah, and Paul did not teach against God’s Torah.”

The writer then goes on to say that the real issue here is Jewish customs of not sharing meat (and perhaps wine) with Gentiles, and also the honoring of certain days. There was a specific Law code of the Roman Jewish Synagogue community on this subject at that time. How these converted Jews decided to “live out their faith” as Christians were not only a “personal choice,” but it was only binding on them. As Paul teaches in this chapter, Yeshua also taught that what we bind on earth (as Torah for ourselves), is respected in heaven. For example, according to the Torah, cows are kosher. However, if the blood of this animal is not disposed of in a certain manner then the cow is considered spiritually unclean, and to knowingly eat it would be a sin. As the Jews had no way of knowing how Gentiles dealt with how they drained blood when slaughtering a cow, their Law code was to not eat of the meat of Gentiles at all. That means although the Jew considered the cow as clean according to Torah (and Yeshua), yet to anyone who decides to make it unclean to themselves as part of their Law code it indeed becomes unclean to them.⁷

14:15-16  If you injure the faith of your brother or sister because of something you eat, you are not really following the way of love. Don’t destroy anyone’s faith by eating something they think is wrong. Christ died for them. Don’t allow what is good for you to become something they say is evil.

While Paul is certainly giving everyone the choice of deciding what to eat or drink based on the Holy Spirit’s conviction of their conscience, he tells them that they bear a special responsibility to make sure it does not offend other believer’s consciences. Paul had good reason to warn his fellow leaders in the Church because of what God told the leaders of Israel through the prophet Ezekiel: “You have made My good people sad because of your lies whom I did not want to hurt. But you have helped the sinful man so that he does not turn from his sinful way and save his life. So you will no longer have any worthless visions and produce false interpretations of the future. I will save My people from your hands. And then you will know that I am the Lord.”⁸ Paul was unequivocal about what he thought of being responsible for someone else falling away from the faith: “When you sin against a weak Christian by making him do what is wrong, you sin against Christ. So then, if eating meat makes my Christian brother trip and fall, I will never eat it again. I do not want to make my Christian brother sin.”⁹

For Paul, helping others was a lot more important than helping oneself. He told the Galatians: “Christian brethren, you were chosen to be free. Be careful that you do not please your old selves by sinning because you are free. Live this free life by loving and helping others.”¹⁰ He shared the same thoughts with the Philippians: “Keep expressing the same love. Be as one in thoughts and actions. Nothing should be done because of pride or thinking about yourself. Think of other people as more important than yourself. Do not always be thinking about your own plans only. Look out for each other’s interests and not just for your own.”¹¹ As he told the Corinthians: “You may make the weak Christian fall into sin by what you have done. Remember, he is a Christian brother for whom Christ died.”¹²

Brian Tracy is CEO of Brian Tracy International, a company specializing in the training and development of individuals and organizations. Tracy has consulted for more than 1,000 companies and addressed more than 5,000,000 people in 5,000 talks and seminars throughout the US, Canada, and 70 other countries worldwide. As a Keynote speaker and seminar leader, he addresses more than 250,000 people each year. Tracy has a lot to say about unconditional love in his books. In one of his seminars, he made the following statement: “The greatest gift that you can give to others is the gift of unconditional love and acceptance.”

Lisa Pool, a “re-branding” agent who works with clients to master their image and teaches on the DIY way to successful marketing and small business promotions. Had this to say about the unconditional love that she experienced in her life. According to the book by Greg Baer, Real Love, unconditional love is, in essence, true love – so different from the kind of love most of us have known all our lives that it deserves a definition of its own.

For Lisa, unconditional love is caring about the happiness of another person without any thought for what we might get for ourselves. It’s unconditional love when other people care about our happiness unconditionally. Lisa isn’t too fond of treating the subject of unconditional love in a “touchy-feely” way. Even beginning a discussion about love and true love and what is real love can give some the impression that is what the “hippie movement” was all about. But it’s important for each of us who have experienced unconditional love should learn how to share it with others without getting all romantic. Lisa said that she had been talking about this behavior for years but only recently did she begin to understand it on a deeper level that there is a lot more to unconditional love that what’s seen on the surface.

Unconditional love is not exhibited when we do things for others so they will like us for doing what they want or because we give them what they demand of us. Under those conditions, we’re just “paying” for love in a way (or literally in some cases) with what we do to get that attention. They can only be certain of our unconditional love when they make foolish mistakes when they fail to do what other people want, and even when they get in our way, but we don’t feel disappointed or irritated with them. When they make a seemingly poor choice about their lives, take a wrong turn, undo or sabotage their own happiness… its unconditional love that keeps us right by their side, not judging or punishing but loving them without prior conditions. It’s that love alone that has the power to heal all wounds, bind people together, and create relationships quite beyond our present capacity to imagine.

To love another person under any circumstances is not relegated to passionate love either. It is not what the pop psychs refer to as “enabling” or just allowing someone to continue their unacceptable behavior by overlooking it or neglect to bring it up. Unconditional love allows us to be confident in ourselves and the strength we have in our hearts and minds to give the same to another person. Friends and family can be completely unconditional with their love for us. However, from our youth up we have been programmed to be conditional, to expect something in return for our love. We cannot say with complete confidence that we don’t place some degree of conditions on almost all our communication and interactions. We are quite specifically conditioned to only give love when we are reciprocated, and most often according to what we think is worthy of our love. Unconditional love is not a loan needing to be repaid, but an unattached gift freely flowing from our heart – a gesture where only they benefit directly.

On occasions, we might be fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of such an act of thoughtfulness, the experience can be both endearing and a bit awkward – what do we do to or for someone to show our appreciation for such an unconditional act of kindness, especially when they ask for nothing in return? Genuine unconditional love is a little strange to receive in our world of expectations and reactions, and yet if we allow ourselves to be the receiver, we will find out that it is pretty terrific. So if that’s how we feel, how must it feel to whom we freely offer unconditional acceptance and love?

So that brings up the question, how do we love unconditionally? Here are some points that Lisa gives for us to consider:

First, loving unconditionally is more an act of the will than a feeling of emotion. Loving is the act of extending ourselves, vulnerabilities and all, into uncharted emotional territory with the belief that regardless of the outcome, we’re willing to risk giving our love away to benefit another person. Love is an abstract feeling, it cannot be poured into a glass like orange juice. In fact, love only exists as an idea until it is put into motion by an act of our will. Sometimes our love will bring us nothing in return and at others times we are overwhelmed by the other person’s gratefulness. But no matter what the result, the greatest satisfaction we can experience is just knowing we gave our love away without any strings attached. When that happens, it is a pure act of unconditional generosity.

Secondly, ask yourself “Am I truly acting with all the love I can give to this person at this moment?” Sometimes the answer to that question is “No,” because our egos are too big and get in the way of a true unconditional response. Unconditional love is a conscious act of the will, so we need to check ourselves to see if we are ready to make that commitment. Unconditional love may be an entirely new process for us in every situation, and we want to convey sincerity with each person we extend that love experience to some people who don’t know how to accept love without conditions.

Thirdly, we may have a situation in our life that is uncomfortable for us to accept and our behavior and reaction to what is facing us may not necessarily in the best interest of our personal growth. To love someone unconditionally does not mean that the act of that love is always going to be easy or feel comfortable. To be there for someone when they have challenges and need to foster growth, even those individuals in the fog of confusion know that there is going to be pain and some serious discomfort. If you go out of your way to protect them from these feelings and emotions you’re not loving them unconditionally. Unconditional love means you tell them the truth with gentle, kind communication and you are there, without judgment, to see them to the other side.

Fourthly, what does it mean if you are seen as someone who loves others, giving of yourself freely without any boundaries? Can it be that people see you as a “people pleaser?” Are they convinced that you are loving them unconditionally or loving them to please yourself? We all must know that playing the martyr is not rewarding or validating and only leaves us and the other person resentful as victims of a selfish scheme. We must make sure that we recognize what’s in this for them, not what’s in it for us. This is a healthy part of defining who we are as individuals and crucial to know our own level of satisfaction in being a giver who expects, not wants, anything in return. Remember, only when we know intrinsically that we have love that can be given without hurting us can we give love cleanly and unconditionally.

Fifthly, forgiveness is so important. Again, this can put a strain on our behavior and give us the satisfaction of knowing we’ve done our best. We may like to think that we have mastered this, but must be prepared if we haven’t. It’s probably the most difficult and truly absolute act of love we can perform. In any circumstance where we feel we have been wronged, neglected or taken advantage of if someone doesn’t apologize, it can prove to be the most loving thing we can do to them and ourselves if we choose to keep giving without any anger or resentment.

Burying any hurt or resentment we may have can end up hurting us emotionally and spiritually, and over time, physically. The noted author and philosopher Piero Ferrucci shares in his book, Beauty and Soul, that forgiving “is not something we do, but something we are.” Granting forgiveness unconditionally isn’t communicating you’ll allow someone to be hurtful or rejecting an acting as though it doesn’t bother you. The act of practicing unconditional love will be tainted and not at all healing if you choose to hold onto negative stuff. While you do acknowledge that you wish their reaction would have been more thankful and appreciative, you immediately dismiss any thought of contemplating any punishment they deserve. There is no perfect, simple way to love without conditions. But the ability to do so grows stronger each time we do.

Fifthly, life is hard more often than we’d like it to be. Life is definitely conditional; if we don’t eat, sleep or drink water we will surely die. Scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and ministers have for centuries spoken of the “unconditional, perfect and everlasting love.” We can surely accept this a being a real thing, but not always guaranteed. We all have our bright side and dark side. If we allow ourselves to deny this human condition is to be ignorant to the foundation of our human nature. Self is a part of growth, and learning how to train self to be more giving rather than wanting can be a benefit every moment of every day for us and those whom we have the privilege to love.

So what does the Bible have to say about the idea of unconditional love? There are two sides to this agape love: What is said about it and what is seen when it is put into action. King David said that he felt like a green olive tree when he was in God’s presence. That’s because he felt loved by God forever and ever. It made him want to thank God each day of his life because of what God had done for him. His hope was secure in the fact that God was exactly who He said He was. There is nothing more pleasing and satisfying than to know that you belong to Him.¹ A green olive tree was not yet ready to have its fruit pressed into olive oil. But that is its purpose and destiny. Once those olives are harvest and pressed to release their oil, they get nothing in return. In fact, they continue to bear olives so that they too can be used to produce oil. But, figuratively speaking, if the olive tree would have any reason to smile and feel a sense of satisfaction would be to know that its oil is being used all over the world to create savory dishes in many different countries as part of various cuisines.

Wise King Solomon, David’s son, learned much from his father. In his book of wise sayings, called Proverbs, he lets the readers know that insisting on having things done your way will always end up causing discord and even fights, but love has the power to treat misunderstandings with calm and graciousness so that the person is more important than the disagreement.² But Solomon wasn’t finished. Later on, he said that a true friend loves unconditionally. Not only that, but close friends are born to help share our troubles.³

The prophet Isaiah also received a special word from the Lord concerning those in Judah who thought God had forsaken and forgotten them. But the Lord was quick to answer with a question. He asked, can a woman forget to nurse her hungry child? Is it possible that she has no compassion for the child she gave birth to with pain? But even though this may be possible for some, God says I have not forgotten you. In fact, I’ve written your names on the palm of My hands.⁴ This was the Lord God’s way of saying that His love is unconditional and everlasting.

The prophet Jeremiah received the same message. God was reminding His people that He is and always will be their God. He told them that His love was the kind that lasts forever.⁵ They were never to think of God’s love a conditional, seasonal, or dependent upon what they were willing to give in return. It could not be bought, earned, merited, received as part of a trade, begged for, or demanded. It was freely given and freely received.

Of course, one of the greatest definitions of unconditional love was what the Apostle John said after hearing Jesus explain the Kingdom of Heaven to a Sanhedrin member named Nicodemus, and entry into this kingdom came by experiencing a new birth.⁶ God wanted to show the creatures that He created in His image that He loved them. So He sent His one and only Son to die for them so that their sins could be atoned for. And everyone who accepts the free gift without strings will be given a new relationship with God that will last forever. John doesn’t say that God said if you do this I’ll do that. No, no! He sent His Son with His offer of unconditional love in His hand. And anyone who was willing to accept this gift of everlasting love would be blessed with the gift of everlasting life.

Later on in his Gospel, John records what Jesus told His followers at the time that His passion, crucifixion, death, resurrection, return to His Father in heaven were about to take place. No wonder that His followers were somewhat anxious. But Jesus told them to love each other the same way that He loved them. So what kind of love was that? Jesus told them that this kind of love would cause one person to willingly give their life in order to save the life of a friend.⁷ In other words, unconditional love without any mandates or strings attached.

The Apostle Paul took this one step further. He told the believers in Rome that God let the whole world know how much He loved them by sending the only Son He had to die for their sins so the He could forgive them for His Son’s sake.⁸ That is the definition of unconditional love. Buy Paul wasn’t finished. Not only is God’s love unconditional, but there is nothing that would cause Him or persuade Him to take it back or stop showing His love.⁹ Because of that, we should love each other with the same true love. Don’t lay down any conditions or demand anything in return. Let it flow into their hearts freely without any attachments. Once you let it go, let God take care of the response.¹⁰

But just in case some believers weren’t sure they really knew what unconditional love really was, Paul gave them a full explanation that laid it out jewel by jewel, shining and sparkling with the glow of God’s unconditional love. With that love operating in your heart and soul, there is nothing impossible with God. And the one point Paul chose to finish his description with is this: “Love never comes to an end.”¹¹

Then in his letter to Bishop Titus, Paul explained why God’s love was so unusual and pure and one-of-a-kind. God loves us when we were acting like fools and did not pay Him any attention or cared if He even existed. We were chained to such sinful tendencies that getting free was out of the question. We had but one goal and that was to please ourselves. And when we couldn’t get what others had, we became angry and hated them even more. In return, they hated us just as much. But that’s when God stepped in and show how kind and loving He was. He knew that because of sinful living we were bound for punishment and destruction. But out of pure love, God’s Son paid the price for us so that we were saved from the punishment we rightly deserved. He took away that evil spirit and put His Holy Spirit in us. Not only did this save us, but it gave us the strength to continue our right relationship with God.¹²

Do we need any more examples of unconditional love as God puts it into action? The hardest part is not understanding it, but putting it into practice. We are so used to getting our money’s worth of whatever we are willing to pay. But this is a case, of being willing to pay with no guarantee that we’ll get anything in return. Is that bad? Absolutely not! That’s what makes unconditional love so beautiful! By giving to others what they cannot get on their own and doing so with no strings attached brings the kind of joy in our hearts that is impossible to describe.¹³ Dr. Robert R Seyda

A WOODEN BOWL SPEAKS

This story by an anonymous writer may not apply to many of you who read my articles, but within the story, there is a message that should be relevant to all of us. It can best be expressed by Jesus’ words, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”¹

A frail old man went to live with his son, daughter-in-law, and four-year-old grandson. The old man’s hands trembled, his eyesight was blurred, and his steps were slow and shaky. The family ate together at the kitchen table each day, but there was little said. The elderly grandfather’s shaky hands and failing eyesight made eating difficult. Peas rolled off his spoon and landed on the floor. When he grasped his drinking glass the contents would spill on the tablecloth and his clothes. The son loved his dad, but this was getting to be too much.

The son and daughter-in-law eventually became irritated with the mess. “You must do something about your father,” said the wife. “I’ve had enough of his spilled milk, noisy eating, and food on the floor.” So the son found a small table and set it in the kitchen corner. There, this heartbroken gentleman ate all alone while the wife, his son, and grandson enjoyed their dinner together, laughing and talking as though he wasn’t there. Since this frail old timer had broken several dishes, his food was being served in an old wooden bowl. When the family glanced in Grandfather’s direction, sometimes he had a tear in his eye as he sat alone. And the only words the couple had for him were sharp admonitions when he dropped a fork or spilled food.

Their four-year-old son watched it all in silence. Then one evening before supper, the father noticed his son looking through a catalog. Thinking he may be prepping for Christmas the father asked the child somewhat sheepishly, “What are you looking for?” Nonchalantly the boy responded, “I’m looking for wooden bowls for you and Mom to eat your food in when you get old.” The four-year-old smiled and went back to looking in the catalog.

The words struck the parents so deeply that they were speechless. Then tears started began to stream down their cheeks. Though no word was spoken, both felt the impact of their little son’s words. They knew that a change must be made. That evening, the husband took Grandfather’s hand and gently led him back to the family table. For the rest of his days, he ate every meal with the family. And for some reason, neither husband nor wife seemed to care any longer when a fork was dropped, milk spilled, or the tablecloth got soiled.

Many of you may have seen this with your own eyes. Even with people you grew up with, how they treated their parents. Perhaps some of you may have reached the age where your parents need your love and commitment to ensure that they live out their days being loved and cared for. And perhaps some of you are elderly yourselves and your children are treating you the way you treated your parents. The question is, are you happy if they did that? Jesus followed up His Golden Rule with another good piece of advice when He said that if we are known to be givers, then we can expect to receive the same kind of treatment when it’s your turn to be blessed by the love and care of others.² – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XVI)

This also can be seen in Peter’s vision while he was lodging in Simon the leather tanners house. When he was praying on the rooftop, “He saw heaven open up and something like a large linen cloth being let down to earth by the four corners. On the cloth were all kinds of four-footed animals and snakes of the earth and birds of the sky. A voice came to him, ‘Get up, Peter, kill something and eat it.’ Peter said, ‘No, Lord! I have never eaten anything that our Law says is unclean.’ The voice said the second time, ‘What God has made clean you must not say is unclean.’ This happened three times. Then the sheet was taken back up to heaven.”¹

Perhaps Paul heard Peter tell this story, so he felt free enough to share with the Corinthians: “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without letting it bother your conscience because the earth and everything in it belong to the Lord.²”³ When Paul wrote Timothy, whose father was Greek, Paul had this to say about those going around saying don’t do this and don’t do that, especially eating certain kind of foods: “God gave these things to Christians who know the truth. We are to thank God for them. Everything God made is good. We should not put anything aside if we can take it and thank God for it. It is made holy by the Word of God and prayer.”⁴

When it comes to Paul’s declaration that nothing that God made for our physical nourishment is to be considered unclean, early church priest and African theologian Novatian (200-258), believes that by his time the eating or abstaining from certain foods and drinks were already something from the past. The way he understood it, these were used as ways to honor what the Creator had to say about it in Jewish legal and ceremonial laws. But since then, Christ the fulfillment of the Law had come and disclosed that all these regulations were meant to teach obedience and discipline. From these things it is plain that all that was intended by the law were returned to their original blessedness now that the Law is complete in Christ, and that we must not revert to the special observances of meats, which observances were ordained for a certain reason, but which evangelical liberty has now replaced with spiritual things. We were now to look to Jesus and His Gospel for directions on such subjects.⁵

Martin Luther offers what he thinks is the sum total of this chapter: To begin with, the strong should not despise the weak. Furthermore, they should not try to embarrass the weak. Both acts are contrary to Christian love which cares for the weak, does not seek its own, but seeks the edification of the weak.⁶ Paul, of course, was speaking of the dispute among the Jews and Gentiles in the Church at Rome over certain foods and drinks used for everyday purposes. This is why, says Luther, Paul declares with all certainty that what he is telling them is the truth. He is convinced that there is nothing intrinsically unclean with what they bought in the marketplace. The heathen may have intended to use those things in offerings to their dead gods, but a believer plans to use them to sustain his strength and health to serve the living God who created them.⁷ Luther cautions, however, that we must not misconstrue this principle to cover all that is done in the world.

Fellow Reformer John Calvin is more succinct in his commentary. He sees Paul anticipating any objections to what he said about the self-imposed restrictions or freedoms that both the weak and strong believers implemented in their efforts to honor God with their holy living. Paul first shows what must be thought of meats and drinks when viewed in and of themselves, then points out how either abstaining or enjoying such things might be viewed as sinning. He declares that no meat is impure to a right and pure conscience and that there is no hindrance to using such meats except by ignorance or health reasons. And, it is only when anyone imagines an impurity in them but still decides to use them that they have sinned against their conscience, not against God.

Then Calvin notes that Paul also adds that regardless of how such meats are viewed as permissible or not permissible, our real concern is that before partaking or abstaining from them, our attention should be on how it will affect our fellow believers. In Paul’s mind, to view the use of God’s bounty with little regard for others is to disregard love. Calvin then believes that Paul intended to establish the liberty given by Christ in opposition to the bondage of the Law so that believers would not think they were still bound to observe those rites from which Christ had set them free. By the exception which Paul has laid down, we learn that there is nothing so pure that it cannot be contaminated by a corrupt conscience. It is by faith and godly living alone which sanctify all things to us. The unbeliever, being polluted within, defiled all things just by their very touch⁸.⁹

John Bengel comments on Paul’s declaration of being persuaded on the subject of what is clean and what is unclean. He notes the way in which Paul confirms his opposition to believers living in ignorance and doubt. That instead of stronger believers taking it upon themselves to offer their opinions on such matters, it is best to leave such decisions up what we read in Christ’s Gospel.¹⁰ In other words, all, if not most of our opinions are influenced by our earthly ethnicity, and the customs, and manners we grew up practicing and respecting. So when it comes to spiritual matters, the teachings of Christ should take precedence over our inherited biases and prejudices.

Adam Clarke agrees with Bengel but feels that believers must also see another aspect. After having given them this decisive judgment with due respect and concern for the mistaken consciences of weak believers, Paul immediately adds that to those who determine something to be unclean, it is unclean to themselves alone, not everyone else. If they act contrary to their conscience, they will no doubt feel guilty because the Holy Spirit is in charge of their conscience. Anyone who acts in opposition to their conscience in one case may do it again in another, and then even the clear declarations of God’s Word may be considered irrelevant to the situation. This includes the misguided, though well-intentioned, dictates of their conscience on matters which they consider important. They must realize that to others who are better informed, these things are unimportant.¹¹ In other words, stick with your conscience and the things that your spirit and God’s Spirit agree on.

Clarke goes on to say that it is a dangerous thing to play with your conscience, even when you are not sure of the accuracy of what you’re being told. Everything should be studied with guidance. You must be fully convinced so that you do not end up falling for some fad. Things that are taught right should be respected because it is always in reference to what God said, and its foundation is based on respect for what God’s Word. Remember, says Clarke, the person who sins against their conscience in things which everyone else knows to be of little significance, will soon do it in those things in which their salvation is of vital concern. It is a great blessing to have a well-informed conscience; it is a blessing to have a tender conscience; even a sore conscience is infinitely better than no conscience at all.¹²

Charles Hodge feels that Paul is appealing to the stronger Christian’s sense of good will and patience with those who have not come as far as they have by faith. It is generally accepted that the distinction between clean and unclean meats is no longer valid. So far, the Gentile converts were right. But they should remember, that those who consider the laws of the First Covenant are still binding cannot with a good conscience disregard them. The strong should not, therefore, do anything which might unknowingly lead such persons to violate their own sense of duty to God. Hodge has Paul saying: “I know and am persuaded by (in) the Lord Jesus, namely. this knowledge and persuasion I owe to the Lord Jesus; it is not an opinion founded on my own reasonings, but a knowledge derived from divine revelation. That there is nothing unclean of itself.”

Hodge then points out that the Greek adjective koinos, “rendered unclean” (KJV), relates to things that are commonly used as opposed to things that are holy. Holy means “separated for some special or sacred use.” In that sense, koinos signifies something is unworthy to be used for such purposes.¹³ But to the person that considers anything to be unclean, it is to them alone unclean. They don’t speak for everyone else. This doesn’t mean that the meat itself is somehow contaminated. The word unclean is used only to designate something that is forbidden by the Law. The simple principle taught here is that it is wrong for any person to violate their own sense of duty. This being the case, those Jewish converts in Rome who believed the distinction between clean and unclean meats was still in force, would be sinning against their conscience should they be persuaded to act contrary to their conscience.¹⁴

Frédéric Godet shares his thoughts on what Paul is trying to say here. It was not Paul’s intention to discuss these matters, but yet he could not conceal his convictions. He expresses it in passing as a concession he must make as a strong believer. When he uses the Greek verb eidō, (rendered as “I know” (KJV)), it implies that he has come to a rational, yet spiritual conviction, such as even a Jew, trained in First Covenant theology about true spirituality might reach.

The other Greek verb peithō, (translated as “I am persuaded” (KJV)), goes further. It indicates that this conviction has penetrated to the core of his deepest conscientiousness and set it free from the bonds of confusion. Then the words: “by the Lord Jesus,” remind us that it is He who has put an end to the obligations imposed by the Legal and Ceremonial Laws. The emancipation which faith finds in Him arises not only from His doctrine,¹⁵ but above all from the redemption He bought with His sacrifice on the cross. Godet notes that this clause: “in the Lord Jesus,” clearly means that Paul reached the conclusion on what was clean or unclean by being persuaded – peithō. That means, this idea did not just come to him out of the blue, he was persuaded to believe it. We can, therefore, can state with certainty that nothing except being born again in Christ and the persuasiveness of the Gospel as seen the help of the Holy Spirit can give such full liberty to the soul.¹⁶

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XV)

Robert Haldane comes to the conclusion that Paul’s admonition now appears to be addressed to both Jews and Gentiles. The Apostle having asserted what was peculiar to each group, now declares what is equally applicable to both. Criticizing or condemning was not particularly the fault of just one side; both of them were criticizing and condemning each other. The strong believers who despised the weak virtually criticized them by condemning them. At the same time, the weak believers who condemned the strong were, in fact, criticizing them because they despised them. So neither group could claim to be holier than the other. Paul now focuses on both and warns them to be cautious. He extends this exhortation to himself, and to the whole Body of Christ. First, they are not to assume authority over one another, nor to take for granted that they have the right to criticize one another concerning such small matters. Secondly, Christians are to avoid doing anything that has the danger of making someone else stumble, or cause anyone to fall back into their old habits. This is particularly applicable to the strong, who, by an improper use of their liberty might convince weaker believers to go against their conscience.¹

Charles Hodge too sees the importance of the responsibility on the part of any strong believer for their weaker brother or sister when it came to dietary or moral liberties. They are not to feel as though they automatically have the authority to judge their shortcomings. Hodge points to Paul’s instructions in the previous discussion, that everyone should leave the office of judging in the hands of God. Now he’s ready to introduce the second leading topic of this chapter, namely, the manner in which Christian liberty is to be exercised. Paul teaches that it is not enough that some are persuaded that a certain type of behavior is, in itself, considered right in order for them to act in some particular way. They must be careful that they do not injure others in the use of their liberty. The word “judge,” also means, “to determine, to make up one’s mind.” Paul first uses it in the one sense and then in the other: “Do not judge one another, but determine to avoid giving offense.” The Greek noun proskomma rendered first as “stumblingblock,” and skandalon then rendered as “an occasion to fall” (KJV), do not differ in their meaning. Proskomma is simply a narrower interpretation of skandalon.²

Albert Barnes sees a moral component in what Paul is saying here. If a person finds themselves in a position to critique others, then they should go about in the best and most constructive way. For Barnes, this means reaching a conclusion without doing harm to the cause of Christ or to their fellow believers. Some people have been placed in positions where they must sit in judgment and draw a conclusion. But let them do so without doing any injury or harm to the one being judged. Rather, inspire them to change their ways for the good. So, instead of first forming an opinion on whether or not another person’s actions were right or wrong, begin by determining if their own conduct in judging others will be right or wrong.³

Frédéric Godet finds a subliminal thought here in what Paul says. He notices that after Paul addressed the strong and the weak simultaneously, the Apostle further gives a warning to the strong to persuade them not to use their liberty except in conformity with the Law of Love. It must be observed, however, Paul had nothing similar to recommend to the weak. That’s because someone who is emotionally committed to a strong opinion finds it hard to change their mind. On the other hand, someone who feels free to change may see no problem in waiving their liberty to do something in favor of the one who is struggling with what they see them doing. To induce the strong believer to sacrifice their liberty, the Apostle asks them to take the following two judgment methods into consideration: First, their duty not to wound the heart of the weak by making them feel guilty.⁴ Secondly, be careful not to destroy God’s work within the heart of the weak believer that would result in their being persuaded to go against their conscience out of fear⁵.⁶

Even though Charles Spurgeon preached to his congregation dealing with this subject, using the ethics and virtues of the mid-1800s in England. It is obvious that he confronted some of the same attitudes we see prevalent in the church today. First, he asked them why is it that so many believers seem to think that they are superior to others? Then, where do they get the idea that it is alright for them to criticize the Lord’s other servants? Spurgeon knew of some Christians in his congregation who not only formed unsubstantiated opinions but sought severe punishment without due process. They did this on nothing more than rumors. Furthermore, when they heard of what someone they never met or even knew was reported to have done this or that, without any facts whatsoever, they demanded that this individual be openly rebuked.

Spurgeon considered this to be a product of their obstinate prejudices and biases. Furthermore, they seemed to have no problem taking what this person may or may not have said, then twisting the words to mean what they wanted them to mean. They didn’t bother to find out if that individual even said such things. But Spurgeon wasn’t finished, there were even others who without so much as having a right, or a reason, or an excuse to condemn them, went ahead and wished bad things against a fellow believer they didn’t even know.⁷ Back then, such rumors or insinuations were passed on from one to another by mouth. So it took days or even weeks before the word was out. But today, such vitriol can be shared with, if not millions on social media. The sad thing is, once it goes out it is impossible to reel it back in.

John Stott gives a good explanation of the two words used here that are characteristics that strong believers should avoid developing or becoming. He points out that there is a play on words in the Greek text which contains a double use of the verb krinein, “to judge.” We see it in the following words from Paul: “Let us, therefore, cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment…”⁸ The judgment or decision which we are to make is to avoid putting either a hindrance (proskomma) or a snare (skandalon) in our brother or sister’s path, causing them to trip and fall.⁹ In other words, there are two ways that strong Christians can use insights and wisdom to counsel a weaker Christian. One is to always keep their best interests in mind and design their counseling to assist them in discovering the source of their weakness so they can end up helping themselves. The other is not make them feel ashamed and pressure them into repenting and making a change to comply with the stronger believer’s opinion. By doing so, it only puts a stumbling block in their path and lays a trap for them in uncharted territory.

Jewish writer David Stern has an interesting interpretation of what Paul is instructing believers to do here. He notes that the teaching presented in this verse expresses the same central point found in a Jewish Midrash (Commentary) on Leviticus 19:14, where it says: “You are not to place a stumbling block before the blind,” or, more generally, “you are not to bring cruel unintended harm upon someone who is helpless.” The Rabbis interpreted “blind” metaphorically to mean “those unlearned in the Torah.” This meaning for “blind” would include both those whom Paul calls weak in trust but inclined to ridicule, and those he considers strong in trust but inclined to pride. Until their attitudes change, both are relatively helpless. It is wrong to for those who judge to charge others of sinning, either in fact or according to their opinion.¹⁰

When professor Stern mentioned how the Rabbis interpreted the term “blind,” he was referring to a portion of the book containing Jewish civil and ceremonial law and legend called the Talmud where Rabbis are discussing charging interest on loans, forbidding that one Jew to do so to another. Rabbi Abaye said it would be like putting a stumbling block in the path of a blind person.¹¹ And in another place, we find where Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar was talking about the principle involved where Jews allowed sharecroppers to lease their land for farming. The Rabbi said, that if a Gentile sharecropper who leased the land was told by the Jewish owner not to work the land on certain Jewish holy days, most likely they would obey. But if a Samaritan rented the land was told the same thing, they would no doubt disobey. Rabbi Eleazar is convinced, that not only would a Samaritan not obey but would tell the Jewish owner of the land: “Do you think I’m that stupid?” If that is so, why should the Jew insist on leasing the land to a Samaritan when they could have leased it to a Gentile without having such problems? As the Rabbi sees it, what the Jew is doing is the same as placing a stumbling block before the blind. He mentions that this would make the Jew responsible for two errors. First, leasing his land to a Samaritan. And secondly, thereby placing a stumbling block before a blind person,¹² So we can see that placing a stumbling block or trap in the path of a weaker believer can be the result of the stronger believer insisting that they must always have their way.

Verse 14: I know that there is no food that is wrong to eat. The Lord Jesus is the one who convinced me of that. But if someone believes that something is wrong, then it is wrong for that person.

Some might think that the Jewish members of the church in Rome would be offended by such talk of eating non-kosher food or drink. But we find that Rabbi Moses Maimonides points to a situation where a Jewish army enters the territory of Gentiles to conquer and take them captive, are permitted during the invasion to eat meat from animals that died without being ritually slaughtered or which were called trefe [non-kosher], and the flesh of pigs and similar animals if they become hungry and can only find these forbidden foods to eat. Similarly, they may drink wine used in the worship of idols. This license is derived by the writers of ceremonial law from Deuteronomy 6:10-11: “God… will give you… houses filled with all the good things such as pigs necks and the like.”¹³

Today we call this “situational ethics.” In other words, something that is considered wrong can in certain circumstances be considered right. American Episcopalian priest and professor Joseph F. Fletcher offered this illustration in his book on Situation Ethics: A German woman in a Russian Concentration Camp learned that the Russians let pregnant women leave. She had not seen her husband or children for some time. So she talked a Russian guard to commit adultery with her so she could go back home to her family. Therefore, while adultery is forbidden by God’s Word, it should be considered the right thing to do under such circumstances.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

Dr. Robert R. Seyda

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CHAPTER FOURTEEN (Lesson XIV)

Charles Ellicott also has another homily on what Paul says in verse 12. He points out that the Apostle argues strongly against this evil spirit of censorship in the Christian Church, and as far as such actions doing anything good to the Body of Christ, Paul says it is pointless. We need not judge one another, for both our brother and sister as well as ourselves will stand before the judgment seat of God. So there is no need of our condemnation, for if any person is truly worthless in God’s eyes He will condemn them: we should not interfere with the work of our Sovereign Master; He manages the affairs of mankind far better than we do. Even more, our judgment is of no value to God. It would be far better to spend time meditating on the fact that we who are so exact and severe in pointing out one fault here and another fault there will be examined by an unerring eye. Our own account must be submitted to God for examination by Him item by item. Therefore, we should give our full attention to our own record.¹

Charles Spurgeon gives a somber warning of the day coming when every knee will bow before God Almighty and give an account of how they used the opportunities given to them to help others. Spurgeon calls all of those who will gather at that trial of all nations and peoples and tongues, a motley mob! Persons of all ages, too. Boys and girls and those who have enjoyed a long life. Kings and Presidents will be there to submit their significant accounts; legislators and judges will answer to their great Magistrate and Judge! Also, those that lived neglecting God and forgetful of their souls – they must all be there! It is a universal judgment. John says, “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God.”² Both sheep and goats will gather before the great dividing Shepherd³ – the wise and foolish virgins will both hear the midnight cry.⁴ The house on the rock and the house on the sand will, alike, be tested by the last tremendous storm!⁵ Tares and wheat, alike, will ripen and be harvested.⁶ Bad fish and good will be sorted out from the net,⁷ while the multitudes outside – the nations that knew not God – will all, without exception, hear with trembling knees the summons to stand before the dread tribunal!⁸ Saints and sinners, too, only on what a different footing, are all to be judged out of the books and out of the Book of Life⁹.¹⁰

Jewish scholar David Stern summarizes what he sees Paul saying in verses 9-12. For him, Paul finishes destroying the argument that physical circumcision, namely, being called God’s “chosen people” is the Jews’ biggest advantage.¹¹ But Paul consistently maintains that this is spiritual, not physical.¹² At the same time, he shows that the righteousness that comes from trusting God is available equally to Jews and Gentiles, not merely because it precedes the Mosaic Law but because it antedates even the Abrahamic Covenant, when circumcision was given as a sign of Abraham’s already demonstrated faith as a seal guaranteeing God’s promises, not as something to boast about. That’s why the words “our Father in heaven” is part of today’s Jewish Prayer Book – the Siddur.¹³ That’s why He is not only “our Father in heaven” to Jews but also to Christians.¹⁴

Verse 13: So we should stop judging each other. Let’s decide not to do anything that will cause a problem for a brother or sister or hurt their faith.

It is clear that Paul is not against believers keeping watch over one another and offering comfort, advice, or even reprimand when they see something that violates God’s Word and His Will. But do so without hypocrisy or self-righteousness. Seeing a brother or sister in tears after they have been shown the truth is fine as long as it is the result of conviction and repentance. But not in response to harsh criticism that results in tears of embarrassment and shame. We should all be committed to removing any stumbling blocks that might cause a fellow believer to fall.

The Apostle James gives an excellent illustration of how people can be hurt and demoralized when we attempt to “put them in their place,” so to speak. He says: “Do not look on one person as more important than another. What if a man comes into your church wearing a gold ring and good clothes? And at the same time a poor man comes wearing old clothes. What if you show respect to the man in good clothes and say, ‘Come and sit in this good place?’ But if you say to the poor man, ‘Stand up over there,’ or ‘Sit on the floor by my feet,’ are you not thinking that one is more important than the other? This kind of thinking is sinful.”¹⁵

But James is not finished, he instructs his readers elsewhere: “Christian brothers, do not talk against anyone or speak bad things about each other. If a person says bad things about his brother, he is speaking against him. And he will be speaking against God’s Law. If you say the Law is wrong, and do not obey it, you are saying you are better than the Law. Only God can say what is right or wrong. He made the Law. He can save or put to death. How can we say if our brother is right or wrong?”¹⁶

No doubt both Paul and James’ thinking was influenced by what Jesus taught about settling matters before they get out of hand and everyone ends up in court.¹⁷ Jesus was certainly reiterating what the Scriptures said back in Moses’ day: “Do not say bad things against a man who cannot hear. Do not put something in the way of a man who cannot see. But fear your God. I am the Lord. Be fair in how you judge. Do not show favor to the poor or to the great. Be fair in how you judge your neighbor. Do not go around saying things that hurt your people. Do not do things against the life of your neighbor. I am the Lord.”¹⁸

This responsibility every Christian carries in their hearts of not becoming the cause of making someone else stumble was a very essential part of Christ’s teaching. He used children to teach His disciples by saying: “It is a sad thing for this world that there are things that cause people to sin. People will always be tempted to sin. But I caution those who become the reason someone sins.”¹⁹ This is also the reason why Paul told the Corinthians to live according to the dictates of their conscience, but make sure they are aware of anything that may cause another person to sin against their own conscience.²⁰ Later, Paul would write that he too was being careful not be the one that caused another believer to stumble.²¹ This no doubt on Paul’s mind when he wrote the Philippians: “It is my prayer: that your love may more and more overflow in fullness of knowledge and depth of discernment, so that you will be able to determine what is best and thus be pure and without blame for the Day of the Messiah.”²²

On the subject of believers not becoming stumbling-blocks to one another, Chrysostom asks us to consider the severe punishment we will suffer if we offend our fellow believers. Even if what was being done concerned something that was against the Law or against one’s opinion, if done wrongly Paul forbids them to continue doing so in order not to cause a brother or sister to stumble and fall. If we go around offending others because we don’t know how to make things right, what treatment do we deserve? For if not saving others is a crime (as is demonstrated by the man who buried his one talent),²³ what will be the result if we offend them as well? But someone may say: “What if they bring the offense on themselves by being weak?” Well, this is precisely why we should be patient. For if they were strong, they would not require so much care.²⁴

But Bishop Theodore gives us an interesting commentary. He says that Paul was really directing his comments to the Gentiles because what he had already said to the Jews was enough. Bishop Theodore has Paul telling them that it is not right for them to sit in judgment of their fellow believers when they all remain subject to stand before Christ. Rather, judge how not to place a stumbling block or a trap for your sister or brother. The Bishop goes on to note that among the Roman Christians, those from among the Gentiles were more numerous, more powerful, and appeared to be more credible. They went out of their way to show disrespect for the Jews by making it a point to eat in front of them those things which the Jews were most careful to avoid, thus disturbing the Jews while neglecting the practice of true religion, and, indeed, became rather neglectful of the congregation themselves. Thus Paul does well to say, or rather to teach us this, not to do harm to a sister or brother, nor to maintain practices which divert them from following their faith and the dictates of their conscience.²⁵

For believers in his day, Adam Clarke advised that they should not judge one another anymore. He encourages them to to abandon such rash conduct; it is dangerous, it is meanspirited. Judgment belongs to the Lord, and He will only condemn those who should not be acquitted. Let both the converted Jew and Gentile consider that they should labor to promote each other‘s spiritual interests, and not be a means of hindering each other in their Christian course; or of causing them to abandon the Gospel. It isn’t a matter of rites, rituals, and ceremonies, but the truths upon with the salvation of their soul depends.²⁶

As someone who has lived the last 80 years in Europe, Asia, and North America, I can vouch for the fact that many times there were open disputes between the Baptists and Lutherans, Presbyterians and Freewill Baptists, as well as Methodists and Anglicans. But the most harmful of all was the disputes between Pentecostal denominations. How could they expect such conduct to promote the idea that a Spirit-filled life is the best life of all?