B. Christian charity (14:13–23)
B. Christian charity (14:13–23)
Martin Luther, who begins his treatise On the Liberty of a Christian with the words quoted above (‘A Christian is a most free lord of all, subject to none’), goes on immediately to say, ‘A Christian is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.’3 He was never a more faithful follower of Paul, and of Paul’s Master and his, than when he juxtaposed these two affirmations.
Paul, having asserted as plainly as possible the freedom of a Christian, now goes on to show how on occasion that freedom may, and should, be limited—but limited voluntarily. In doing so he enlarges on one of the subjects he has already used to illustrate his assertion of Christian freedom—the subject of food.
The question of what kinds of food might and might not be taken agitated the early church in various ways. One of these affected Jewish Christians more particularly. The Jewish food-laws, which had been observed by the nation from early days, constituted one of the principal features which distinguished Jews from their Gentile neighbours. Not only was the flesh of certain animals absolutely prohibited; the blood of all animals was absolutely prohibited, and ‘clean’ animals slaughtered for food had to be killed in such a way that their blood was entirely drained away. Since one could never be sure that meat eaten by non-Jews was free from every suspicion of illegality in one respect or another, it was impossible for a strictly observant Jew to share a meal with a Gentile. Indeed, such a Jew might find it difficult enough to share a meal with a fellow-Jew whom he suspected of laxity in these matters.
Jesus, on one occasion, made a pronouncement about food which, as later reflection on it showed, had the effect of abrogating the Jewish food-laws: ‘he declared all foods clean’ (Mark 7:19). Peter, in his noonday vision on the roof of Simon the tanner’s house in Joppa, learnt not to count as unclean anything or any one that God has pronounced clean; and thanks to that lesson he was ready to visit the Gentile Cornelius at Caesarea and accept his hospitality. But it was long before the majority of Jewish Christians could think of following his example—if, indeed, the majority of them ever did get around to following it. On one occasion, some ten years before this letter was written, Peter was resident in Syrian Antioch and enjoying unrestricted fellowship with Gentile Christians there, when visitors from the church of Jerusalem called on him and persuaded him to withdraw from sharing the same table as Gentiles and to eat with Jews only. His example began to have a devastating effect: even so liberal a Christian as Barnabas was disposed to follow it. Paul publicly accused Peter of ‘play-acting’—acting a part which did not correspond with his inner convictions (Gal. 2:11–14).
When, shortly afterwards, the Council of Jerusalem agreed that Gentiles should be admitted to church fellowship, like Jews, on the sole ground of faith in Christ, a proviso was added to the effect that Gentile converts should abstain from food which was abhorrent to their brethren of Jewish stock and should conform to the Jewish marriage-laws (Acts 15:20, 29). If Paul went along with this decision (as the narrative of Acts declares he did), he makes no appeal to it in his letters when dealing with the issues which it covered, but bases his argument (as here) on ethical principles.
In any case, while Paul was uncompromising where principles which he counted basic were at stake, he was the most accommodating of men once these were safeguarded. Once the principle had been established that Gentiles were to be accepted as full members of the church on the one sufficient basis of faith in Christ, he himself would have been foremost in reminding his Gentile converts of the wisdom of placing some limitation (voluntary, not dictated) on their freedom in non-essentials for the sake of maintaining fellowship with Jewish Christians, not all of whom could be expected to be so completely emancipated in mind as Paul himself was. If Gentile Christians who lived alongside Jewish Christians charitably refrained from food which the latter would find obnoxious, fellowship between the two groups would be promoted. In fact the food-provisions of the Council of Jerusalem retained their validity in some areas of the church for many generations.
One of the food-provisions of the Council of Jerusalem laid down abstention from the flesh of animals which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. This was a question which was bound to be raised among Christians living in a pagan society. In his correspondence with the Corinthian church Paul dealt with it in some detail, because that church had sent him a letter seeking a ruling from him on the subject.
The buying of butcher-meat in a pagan city presented some Christians with a problem of conscience. Much of the meat sold in the market came from animals which had been sacrificed to a pagan deity. The deity received his token portion; the rest of the carcase would be sold by the temple authorities to the retail merchants. Among resident Christians there would be some with a robust conscience who knew that the meat was neither better nor worse for its association with a pagan deity and who were quite happy to eat it; others were not so happy, feeling that somehow the meat had been ‘infected’ by its idolatrous association.
In giving his judgment to the Corinthians on this question, Paul ranges himself, on the one hand, with those who knew that there was no substance in the pagan deities, and that a Christian was at perfect liberty to eat meat of this kind. He reminds them, on the other hand, that knowledge is not everything: the claims of love have to be considered. Paul himself was prepared to forgo his liberty if, by insisting on it, he would set a harmful example to a fellow-Christian with a weaker conscience. If a Christian, who thought the eating of idol meat was wrong, was encouraged by the example of his robuster brother to eat some, the resultant damage to his conscience would be debited to the other’s lack of charity and consideration.
This does not seem to have been such a burning issue in the Roman church; at least, Paul does not deal with it specifically in Romans as he does in 1 Corinthians. The situation in view here, like the situation addressed by the decree from the Council of Jerusalem, is one in which Jewish and Gentile Christians lived together.
Some of the Christian house-churches in Rome would be mainly Jewish in membership, some would be mainly Gentile, others might be mixed. The problem was not simply that Jewish Christians confined themselves to kosher food and continued to observe the sabbath and other holy days, while Gentile Christians practised liberty in both respects. The situation was probably more complex. Many Jewish Christians had become more or less emancipated from the religious obligations of their ancestral law. We may believe that Priscilla and Aquila, with ‘the church in their house’ (16:5), followed Paul’s line in such matters. On the other hand, some Gentile Christians, finding in their Bible (the Greek Old Testament) food-restrictions imposed by divine authority, argued that these restrictions retained their force and should be complied with. As for special days, we know how some Christians of our own time maintain that the seventh day of the week retains the sanctity with which it was invested at the creation and in the law of Sinai and that it should therefore be observed as distinctively holy. That this kind of tendency was not unknown in Gentile Christianity of the apostolic age is evidence from Paul’s letter to the Galatians, sent to Gentile converts who were not only keeping the Jewish sacred calendar but even accepting circumcision.
Among the house-churches of Rome, then, we should probably envisage a broad spectrum of varieties in outlook and practice between the firm Jewish retention of the ancestral customs and Gentile remoteness from these customs. Some Jewish Christians might be found on the liberal side of the half-way mark between the two extremes and some Gentile Christians on the ‘legalist’ side. P. S. Minear has distinguished five different attitudes in these respects among the Roman Christians.4 Variety of this kind can very easily promote a spirit of division. Paul wishes to safeguard the Roman Christians against this, encouraging them to treat the variety rather as an occasion for charity, forbearance and understanding. It is good to be strong in faith and emancipated in conscience, but Christians are not isolated individuals, but members of a fellowship; it is therefore the responsibility of all, and especially of those who are stronger and more mature, to care for the well-being of the fellowship.
13. Let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide … The same Greek verb (krinō) does duty for ‘pass judgment’ and ‘decide’.
Never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. That is, never to set an example which might lead another into sin. A Christian ‘stumbles’ (cf. verse 21) if, imitating the action of a more emancipated Christian, he does something of which his own conscience does not approve. It would be better for the emancipated Christian to help his ‘weaker’ brother to have a more enlightened conscience; but this is a process which cannot be rushed.
14. I … am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. For Paul all food was kosher. He may have been aware of our Lord’s pronouncement on the subject (known to us from Mark 7:14–19), but to be ‘persuaded in the Lord Jesus’ means more than this: it expresses his conviction as a member of Christ, as he considers the life and welfare of the believing fellowship.
But it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. This insight, completely in accord with the teaching of Christ (cf. Mark 7:20–23), has far-reaching implications. Defilement is located in people’s minds, not in material objects. See Titus 1:15.
15. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. These last words express the divine measure of the worth of a human being.
16. Do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil. ‘What for you is a good thing must not become an occasion for slanderous talk’ (NEB).
17. The kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy. Cf. Matthew 6:31 and 33. ‘Do not be anxious, saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” … But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness.’ External commodities like food and drink are ethically neutral compared with the things that matter most. For the sequence ‘righteousness … peace … joy’ cf. Romans 5:1–3; also Matthew 5:6, 9 and 12: ‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness … Blessed are the peacemakers … Rejoice and be glad.’ A parallel to the construction of the verse is provided by 1 Corinthians 4:20, ‘the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power’ (the power, of course, being the Holy Spirit’s).
In the Holy Spirit. As in 8:9–25, the Holy Spirit brings believers here and now into the good of their coming inheritance. For Paul, ‘the kingdom of God’ (as distinct from the present kingdom of Christ) is the future inheritance of the children of God (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5); but ‘in the Holy Spirit’ its blessings can be enjoyed already.
18. He who thus serves Christ. ‘Thus’ (en toutō, ‘in this’) probably means ‘in the pursuit of righteousness, peace and joy’.
19. Let us then pursue. The contextual sense favours the subjunctive diōkōmen rather than the indicative diōkomen, ‘we pursue’ (cf. 5:1, where the indicative is the more probable reading).
For mutual upbuilding. To ‘build up the common life’ (NEB).
20. The work of God. His inward work of grace is causing the believer’s spiritual life to develop. This work, carried out in the individual members, will have a beneficial effect on the growth of the whole community.
21. It is right not to eat meat or drink wine … Cf. Paul’s own policy: ‘if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall’ (1 Cor. 8:13)—and this despite his persuasion that no food was per se impermissible. In food and social customs generally he adapted himself to the company he was in (1 Cor. 9:19–23).
22. The faith that you have. ‘Faith’ in this sense is a firm and intelligent conviction before God that one is doing what is right, the antithesis of feeling self-condemned in what one permits oneself to do.
Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. He, in other words, who has a good (but not insensitive) conscience. Cf. Paul’s defence in Acts 23:1; 24:16.
23. He who has doubts is condemned, if he eats. If he does something about which his conscience is uneasy, he is condemned at heart and incurs a sense of guilt, ‘because his action does not arise from his conviction’ (NEB). But one who does something knowing it to be not only permissible but positively right does it from faith. There is sound sense in the apocryphal incident inserted in Codex Bezae after Luke 6:4, which tells how our Lord, ‘seeing a man working on the sabbath, said to him, “Man, if indeed you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law”.’
Whatsoever does not proceed from faith is sin. The implication of this statement appears to be that an action performed against the voice of conscience can never be right.
For evidence that one early edition of Romans came to an end here, see Introduction, pp. 33–36.