Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 4
May 2, 2021
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
(119)
Thesis: A "believer" is to be very careful to not put a "brother" in the position where he must choose between the approval of men and the approval of God.
Introduction: So far in our studies of this paragraph, we have considered the responsibility of every believer to determine to make his/her fellow believer's spiritual welfare a higher goal than one's own wishes or pleasures. The boundaries of this responsibility consist of dealing with "matters of no
genuine significance". Paul was not dealing with things that have an "intrinsic" morality built into them by virtue of the Divine Glory, but, rather, with things that are
essentially morally neutral but have been saddled by an extrinsic morality rooted in Divine Instruction. Paul pointedly says that the observance of a "day" has no
internal ability to influence God's favor, but, because God demanded the observance of a "day" (the "sabbath", for example), as a matter of an expression of loyalty to God's instruction, it
became a "moral" issue. Disobedience is always "immoral".
This topic has its own complexities so that we must be careful to observe what is actually going on. In the day to day experience of the grace of God to the Church, we must understand that Israel's subjection to "Law" was unique to Israel so that the gentiles were never placed under the dietary laws of "The Law", nor were they placed under the "memorial days" laws of "The Law". Thus, certain aspects of "Law" were given the trappings of morality that did not, and do not, exist as a matter of essential morality. In all cases, across the whole of humanity, those issues that arise out of the Divine Glory are applicable by reason of intrinsic morality; but, those cases of issues which only have "morality" associated with them because of God's commands regarding them are not applicable except to those who live under "The Law" as people to whom God has given specific instructions.
Thus, we must be clear as to our understanding of Paul's words.
- I. What This Clarity Requires.
- A. A determination to "live" for "others" as 14:7-8 (where the primary "Other" is God and the secondary "others" are the people of God): this is the essence of that aspect of the Divine Glory called "Love".
- B. An understanding that every believer will stand under the scrutiny of the Judgment Seat of God for his/her own behavior, not that of others.
- C. A commitment to being genuinely "helpful" to those fellow believers who are susceptible to being thrown off stride by "obstacles" and "stumbling blocks".
- 1. This commitment has to do with how we view our fellow believers.
- a. This "view" must be "without critical judgment" when "non-issues" have become issues.
- 1) This means refusing to treat the diseased in The Faith as "contemptible".
- 2) This means refusing to treat the "free" as "self-indulgent abusers of Grace".
- b. This "view" means that we have a genuine interest in whether or not our treatment of "others" could be genuinely helpful to the spiritual growth of those we are around.
- 2. This commitment is not in regard to those who are "settled" in their own minds as to how they will act in the given circumstances.
- a. The requirement here is 14:5's "being fully convinced in his/her own mind".
- 1) This "convinced" position is the fundamental pursuit of God's approval (what a person does is done "for the Lord" without regard for what others may think of us).
- 2) This means that those who are "free before God" may eat whatever they wish and treat all days as the same in the presence of those who disagree with them because those "convinced" are not susceptible to "obstacles" and "stumbling blocks".
- 3) But this also means that those who fail to be "fully convinced in their own minds" must be treated as "beloved" even though they are "diseased in The Faith".
- a) Every believer has this requirement upon them.
- b) But not every believer has the capacity to fulfill it because of their "disease".
- b. The major problem is this: those "diseased in The Faith" are already failing to live under this requirement, so that they must be considered at all times when one's influence might be used against them.
- D. An understanding of what is really going on when believers are at odds over "non-essentials".
- 1. What did Paul mean in 14:15 when he wrote of a brother being "hurt" because of food?
- 2. Paul's meaning is significant and is revealed by the way the word translated "hurt" is used in the New Testament.
- a. The word is "lupeo" and it signifies "being placed between a rock and a hard place" as an "emotional trauma".
- b. The illustrations are not vague.
- 1) Matthew 14:9 identifies "grief" as the emotional conflict that arises when a person is put "between a rock and a hard place": conflicting "desires" that force a person to do what he/she does not wish to do, or to refrain from doing something he/she wishes to do [That situation where strong impulses war against one another so that something is done/not done against a powerful wish because the "wishes" involved are contrary to one another, but one trumps the other for less than good reasons. Matthew 19:22 gives us this same type of scenario of a person internally conflicted by competing desires (parallel to Mark 10:22)].
- 2) Matthew 17:23 contains the same "situation" in that the disciples "believe" one part of Jesus' statement and not the other and that part that is believed is extremely contrary to what they "want" [In this case, it is not a conflict between two competing "wants", but, rather, a conflict between what is "desired" and what is going to happen because they cannot stop it. Matthew 26:22 is similar: the disciples are told of a betrayal that they cannot stop and are "grieved" because it is so contrary to what they want (parallel to Mark 14:19 and John 16:20). Matthew 26:37 follows this same line of thought].
- 3) Matthew 18:31 continues along this vein: something was done that was totally against what those "grieved" wanted to happen [The difference in this case is that what was not "wanted" has already happened].
- 4) John 21:17 makes Peter's "grief" the result of his recognition that Jesus didn't believe him [Paul's uses of the word in 2 Corinthians follows this particular "thread": the Corinthians "made sorrowful" because Paul let them know had badly they were letting him down (i.e., Paul was thinking things about them that the Corinthians did not want him thinking because the roots of such thoughts showed them in a very bad light)].
- 5) The rest of the uses in the New Testament follow this same "field of meaning" for "grief": a person has been subjected to a situation that he/she did not want to have to face.
- 6) Thus, the issue of "grief" in our text (Romans 14:15) is that of a "brother" who is "forced" by his desire to be commended by his fellow believer to do something that he feels like God will disapprove, but he cannot be "faithful" to God by reason of his lust for his "brother's" good opinion of him.
- a) Thus: Paul is telling the "brother" who has a "better" understanding of The Faith not to put his "brother" in this position (legalists, by nature, value the glory of men more than the glory which God offers, and these "diseased" brothers are legalists at their core) [Recognizing this about his "messed up brother" puts the "understanding brother" under a "loving" obligation to not force this kind of issue upon the "other"].
- b In a sense, however, Paul has already done this himself: he has "grieved" the "diseased in The Faith" brother by identifying him as "diseased" [He has let him/her know what he thinks of them, and that has "grieved" him/her].
