Romans 14:14-23: The Use of Christian Liberty, Part Two

Hey everybody! Been a while since I’ve posted, for various reasons. Mostly I just needed a break from studying for a while. Back at it.

We’re picking up where we left off, and then I really want to get back to going through passages dealing with homosexuality, digging into the New Testament passages.

We left off talking about the first half of Romans 14, and ended with verse 13, Paul’s admonition to both groups, the weaker and the stronger, to not put a stumbling block in front of another Christian. If you haven’t read the first part to this trip through chapter 14, I suggest you go read that one first. Let’s go.

(v14) I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Paul is making a simple statement here. These “areas of contention” are not sinful per se, but can be sinful depending on one’s personal convictions. This may sound strange, and hard to swallow at first, but when it comes to gray areas, Christian morality could be seen as relativistic. R-rated movies, for instance, are not in themselves wrong, but one person may be convicted that they are, and one person may be convicted that they are not, and a third person may be convicted that some are and some are not. However, it is truly not relativistic- it is not the person deciding these things, but the Holy Spirit who is leading them according to their maturity in the Father. If a person decides a certain activity should be avoided, then that is their own conviction, and to break that conviction would be sin.

On a second note, we have to remember our audience. Remember when we talked about the situation in Rome, we had Jewish and Gentile Christians who had disagreements about the Mosaic Law’s place in the Christian life. So when Paul says that nothing is “unclean” in itself, we should be immediately reminded of the Law’s ordinances against certain foods. And why are they not unclean? We should also remember Peter’s dream in Acts 10:10-16. The Lord has done away with the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant, and made what was once unclean to now be clean.

(v15) For this reason, if on account of food your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.

Now, many people like to jump to this verse and 20-21 to try to draw the conclusion that if it is possible that the weaker brother is offended by the stronger’s use of his liberty, that it is the responsibility of the stronger brother to abstain from whatever activity is causing his brother to be offended. We must remember context here; what was said in v13, which was the beginning of the paragraph that also contains this verse, has direct bearing on what it is that is hurting our brother. In our study of v13 we have already established that in order to cause our brother to stumble, contextually, they must be coerced into doing what it is that we feel freedom in. This makes sense with the use of the word grieved.

For connects this verse to verse 13, with v14 acting as a parenthesis, adding insight to instruct us on the proper way to view gray areas, that they are not inherently sinful.

Grieved (lupew) here should hence be viewed in the sense of feeling guilty, because the stumbling block must be participatory in order for it to be called such. So, we grieve our brother by placing a stumbling block in front of him, which is to cause him to take part in our liberty against his conscience, which would therefore make him feel guilty, because he feels that he is doing something wrong.

This type of action is against the rule of love. Agape is used here, “unconditional love.” This is the love that we are supposed to share with our fellow Christians, a love that “bears all things.” The same love that Christ showed for his Church. When we entice our brothers to break their conscience, we are not following the law that Christ lived by.

Destroy means exactly how it sounds, with permanency (See Mk 1:24, Lk 4:34). When speaking of a person, it can carry the meaning of putting to death, killing, bringing to ruin, and eternal destruction. Once again, remember what we said of stumbling blocks in v13, and the permanency with which they cause people to fall. The idea here is the same; to cause someone grief in stumbling is to bring about their ruin spiritually. This could range from them being unable to ever get away from this sin all the way to a denial of their faith. Either way, the consequences of this are dire, and result in a breaking of fellowship. Christ died for all believers, and we are to show each believer the same love that Christ showed them on the cross.

(vs16-17) Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

In the same way that the For in v15 skipped v14 and reached back to v13, so the Therefore here skips v15 and points back to v14. Paul’s point that nothing is unclean in itself is the reason for the stronger brother to not allow weaker brothers to speak of their liberality in degrading ways. Many times, especially here in America, a person’s Spirituality is measured by the things they don’t take part in. A person can be viewed as a Spiritual giant by making a deal about not drinking, only listening to Christian music, not watching movies, seeing no point in sporting events, and the list goes on and on. The problem is that those things do not make a person Spiritual- for just as Paul says here, the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking. There are much more important things that Christians are to focus on besides simply the choices one makes in his daily life. Instead, it’s the fruit of the Spirit that shows the activity of the Spirit in one’s life (Gal 5:22). It isn’t unusual to hear a preacher go off on a rabbit trail on some topic of pop culture and condemn it as completely sinful. We have to be careful on the things we condemn. Certainly there are some things which the Bible specifically teaches about, and those things that are called sin, should be called sin. The problem is when we start to draw conclusions about certain things, and then call the application the sin, rather than calling the sin, sin. For instance, to look at something like The Lord of the Rings, and say, “It contains wizards, and wizards practice magic, and the Bible says magic is evil, therefore The Lord of the Rings is evil and it is sinful to read it,” is applying a scriptural truth to something that Scripture was not directly speaking against. Scripture does not speak against fiction, nor does it speak against reading or writing about things that are sinful, but only condemns the actual act of witchcraft. To apply Scripture to something that it wasn’t speaking about is simply that, application, and application is not always dogmatic. But, these are more often than not the sermons that get the Amen!'s, where all the older folks nod their heads approvingly. For some reason, these denials of applicational evils bring emotions to the surface, but are not good or evil in reality, and should not be lingered on.

For this reason, the stronger brother should not allow a fellow Christian, the weaker brother, to speak of his freedom as evil. They should be reproved in gentleness, and with Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). Notice in 2 Tim 3:16 the use of the word correction. The Greek word, epanorthosis, carries the idea of improvement, correcting in a way that makes it better than before. This should be the goal of the stronger brother in rebuking his weaker brother; to show the grace of God through our freedom in Christ in a way that builds his brother up in knowledge through the use of the inspired text. Knowledge in the Christian life is important- without knowledge, there can be no faith. Thus the liberality of the stronger brother can be a good thing to the weaker brother, it can be a means by which they can learn more about the grace of God and the freedom we have in Christ.

(v18-20) For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and causes to stumble.

In this way refers to righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Bill Mounce said, “While freedom is a right, it is not a guide for conduct. Love serves that purpose. Rights are to be laid aside in the interest of love." There is a difference between freedom and antinomianism. Freedom is something that can be picked up and set down at will. That’s what makes it free. Those who are strong have the ability to, of their own will, decide to set something down and pick it up depending on which is the proper choice at the moment. Antinomianism is a noose- when you believe there are no laws, that you can do what you want when you want, you become unable to set down anything, and the noose only tightens until it is inescapable. True freedom builds up, but libertinism tears down.

(v21) It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.

Once again, as was stated in the commentary to v13, contextually, for someone to stumble is to fall into a sin that they do not come out of. The same Greek word I have translated as stumbling block in v13 is used in v20, proskomma, and the verb form proskoptw is used here. Again, the admonition given by Paul is to not take part in something that will cause a weaker brother to also take part in the same thing. The NASB’s translation of gives offense in the previous verse is misleading. The idea is not simply being offensive, as many people construe this passage, but causing them to stub their toe on a sin that causes them to fall down and not get up.

(v22) The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.

This entire verse is stated in the second person singular (‘you,’ as opposed to ‘you all’), which adds emphasis to the rather personal tone to this verse. Also, remember the context; the previous verses are once again directed toward the stronger brother, so we should take this verse also. Paul is explaining in this verse that each person’s convictions are their own, and no one else’s. This underlines the previous passages’ directions against not causing your brother to stumble and not allowing evil to be spoken of those things you consider good. When a person is convinced in himself that something is clean, he should not allow another to force a change in his convictions. Each person’s convictions are their own, and are something that comes from faith. A stronger brother is given a larger measure of faith, and the weaker brother is lacking faith (v2). There is no reason someone who is stronger, and has the faith to partake, should allow someone who is weaker and lacking faith, to dictate the terms of their convictions. This follows from the second sentence of this verse. When a person feels free to partake in a certain activity, and does so under no negative conviction, they are happy. It is a good thing to partake in our freedoms granted to us by Christ. Exercising that freedom is as Christian as any other ordinance we recognize, so long as we are not causing our brothers to sin.

(v23) But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

This is the definition of stumbling. Once again, Paul brings into this issue the problem of faith; those who take part in something they believe is wrong are not practicing faith in the issue. From what was stated in v1, we can see that they simply cannot practice faith in partaking, because they lack faith in the issue at hand. An admonition from v5 can be added here. Freedom is a matter of strength in faith. If one is not personally convinced through the Spirit and in learning, then they are simply following the convictions of others. Stumbling then becomes easy, as the conviction was not theirs to begin with. The weaker brother should be fully convinced in his own mind, through learning and Spiritual discernment, for whatever his mind is easily convinced of without discernment, he can become easily unconvinced of. We should each, weaker and stronger, be confirmed in our beliefs, with strong reasoning for why we believe what we do. This is a foundation that both strong and weak can grow on, and through love, come to understand and accept the other for their contrasting convictions.

I hope this study has been helpful. We are all led by the Lord to our own decisions and convictions. The important thing is not to let others’ convictions cloud ours. How the Lord leads us in our freedom is between us and him. 

For the one who believes we are free to do it, they should practice care, lest it turn to frivolity. Being the cause of another's fall is grievous indeed! With being acknowledged as the stronger brother comes the responsibility of harnessing that strength. The rule of moderation is always a good bet, the pendulum that swings wide swings wrong. Too much liberality causes injury to fellow Christians, but too many restrictions make for strife and unhappiness.

To the one who believes that restrictions makes for a pious life before God, the words of Colossians 2:20-23 speak volumes:

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. 

Notice that abstinence-type rules are said to come from "teachings of men!" A life of law is not a Christian life. They have only the appearance of wisdom, but contain no wisdom in truth. They hinder life, but are of no avail against sin- in yourself or in others. One of the greatest myths in Christianity is that abstinence will help curb the sin in others by not being a temptation yourself. This is simply not true. Simply put, a life of law and abstinence is not life- it is law.

Grace and peace to you,

Mike