The kingdom of the Messiah is the culmination of the divine plan for the ages. It has been created to conquer and subdue every alien thought and bring into captivity every stronghold of opposition. Its citizens upon earth are sanctified men and women who have been born again. They are the living representatives of the power and majesty of the monarch whom they have accepted to rule and reign over them. To the extent they are such the kingdom will be a potent force in any community; to the extent they are not, it will lose its influence over the hearts of men.
In every generation there are threats to the welfare and progress of the kingdom, created by false conceptions of those who are members of it. Just as in every nation there are citizens who do not grasp the principles of their respective constitutions, and who manifest subversive tendencies, so it has ever been in the kingdom of the Messiah. One who reads the history of the church of God as it is portrayed in the new covenant scriptures cannot help but see how much of it is devoted to detailing the errors in the thinking of those who were its constituency, and the correction of such errors.
It is difficult for the finite mind to grasp the majestic greatness of the kingdom. There is ever a tendency to believe that the kingdom of heaven is advanced by human philosophy and eloquence. The kingdoms of this world have all produced their statesmen and these have generally been individuals who could sway and bend the masses by word and gesture. Beholding the material fortunes of worldly kingdoms rise under the dominant influence of orators, those who compose the kingdom of heaven, motivated by ambition for its success, are constantly subject to the temptation to employ the same means. It is for this reason schools for special clergymen are inaugurated, and certain select members of the citizenry given special training in such theological seminaries. The kingdom of heaven is thus made dependent for its advancement upon a human auxiliary. In every such instance the best interests of the divine institution have been betrayed.
The betrayal has come not so much from the human organization, as from the spirit or philosophy which gave it birth. The idea that the kingdom of the Messiah is dependent upon the linguistic attainments of men, leads to the selection of certain fluent ones of the community who are polished and perfected and put forward as the champions of the Cause. This very act excludes the body of the citizenry from active participation, breeding in the masses who have had no access to professional training a feeling of inferiority. The whole vicious circle proceeds from a lack of recognition that the ways of God are not the ways of men, and that he has not selected the powerful to shame the weak; but has chosen the foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27).
This very problem existed in aggravated form in one of the communities of saints planted through the efforts of Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Corinth, located upon the isthmus of Greece, was a city of wealth, luxury, and voluptuousness. Under the guise of religion, immorality was practiced in conjunction with idolatry, and the temples of the gods were virtual houses of assignation. Yet the city was known for the beauty of its architecture, the wisdom of its philosophers, and the power of its statesmen. Into this city of mingled vice and wisdom came the humble Jew, of whom the Corinthians said, "His bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account" (2 Cor. 10:10). Refusing to prey upon them, to take advantage of them, or to put on airs among them (2 Cor. 11:20), he stood among them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. But the glory of the cross is emphasized by the weakness of the human vessel who bears it, and its power is in direct ratio to the humility of its servant. It is an axiom of God that "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in your weakness."
In this city of Grecian culture men fell captive to the sword of the Spirit and surrendered as slaves to Jesus. A colony of heaven was planted. But soon the ambitions of men began to assert themselves and rivalry with its consequent partisan spirit disrupted the fellowship of the saints. In the midst of this saddening state of affairs, word was conveyed to Paul at Ephesus, and he penned a letter to them, in which he summed up in one brief statement the difference between truth and the false concept of the factious elements. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power" (1 Cor. 4:20).
Since there is an unceasing conflict between these two concepts, it will be profitable for us to consider the setting in which this statement glows with such brilliance. Only thus we can learn of what the kingdom consists, and of what it does not consist. This sentence occurs at the close of Paul's condemnation of partisan factionism in the community of saints at Corinth. It is his summary of what produced that factionism. The congregation was rent and torn by schisms. These were produced by a mistaken idea as to the nature of the kingdom of God and its method of growth. Perhaps our modern factions are rooted in the same cause. It may be that if we can visualize the problems at Corinth, we can more clearly see our own problems and find a solution for them.
The nine spiritual gifts enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 were abundantly manifest in the community of saints. The grace of God was bestowed especially in the gift of speech and knowledge. It was by this means the testimony of Christ was confirmed among them, so that they were not lacking in any spiritual gift while awaiting the completed revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ, who by it would sustain them to the end and present them guiltless in the final day of accounts (1 Cor. 1:4-8).
But, as it often happens in congregations with a multiplicity of talented men, personal ambition forged to the front, and the gifted ones forgot that "to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" and they began to seek a personal following. The gift of tongues was relegated to a degree of importance in the assembly which it did not deserve, and it was coveted by those who would, through it, enhance their personal popularity.
The dissensions and quarrels resulting from party rivalry were reported to the apostle by the family of a sister in the Lord, Chloe, and he immediately composed his rebuke of the situation. He showed first that there was no place for party spirit inasmuch as Christ was not divided. Since no one now on earth had been crucified for them, and they were not baptized into the name of such an one, they owed no allegiance to, and should not become partisan followers of any man, not even of Paul himself. He stated that his commission was to proclaim the Good News "and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." The contrast between eloquent wisdom and the power of the cross is here brought into sharp focus. The apostle Paul would be rejected today on the "trial sermon" basis of selecting a preacher.
He next showed that the ultimate end of following human wisdom is the rejection of God. "The world by wisdom knew not God." Accordingly, through a message which the world branded as foolishness, it pleased God to save men. And his instruments to bear that message were lowly men, not esteemed by the world. Here reference is made to the constituency of the Corinthian congregation, of whom Paul affirms, "Not many were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth" and thus, not one had any grounds for boasting in the presence of God.
But it is when he turns to his own initial service in Corinth that Paul best illustrates the method of God. He writes, "When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom." He asserts that he was in weakness and much fear and trembling, and that his speech and message were not in plausible words of wisdom, and the reason was that their faith should not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. Again there is a bold contrast between "lofty words" and "plausible words" and "the power of God." The first are employed by men who seek to gain their purposes by human means; the second by God who knows the human heart.
It is expected that those who are called by the power of God will boast of the Lord and not of the human instruments of his power. Those who are motivated by the compelling force of eloquence and lofty words of wisdom will obviously magnify the leader who is possessed of such rich talent, and since men differ in their philosophies, parties will form around them, and jealousy and strife result. But it is also true that those who were called by the power of God, may afterwards exalt men of special gifts and abilities with the same evil result. That was what happened at Corinth.
This condition prompted Paul to state that he could not address them as spiritual men, but as men in the flesh, as babes in Christ. He asked, "While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?" This points up the fact that there is a difference between spiritual men and ordinary men. The latter are characterized by jealousy and strife. These are their trademarks. But men of the spirit rise above partisanship, they are not ordinary, but extraordinary men! So long as one says he belongs to this party, and another says he belongs to that party, the congregation is composed of men devoid of real spiritual values.
Not even Paul and Apollos were saviors, but servants through whom men believed, as the Lord assigned to each. One planted, the other watered, but only God could give the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, so it is foolish to exalt either as the leader of a religious party. This necessitates a caution that no man should deceive himself. This is easily done for men are by nature hero worshipers. They either seek for prominence directly or bask in the reflected glory of one whom they have exalted.
However, the fact that God catches the wise in their craftiness and knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile, should cause one to think seriously before elevating even the wisest of men, or boasting about such. Even the holy apostles should be regarded as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Is this not a condemnation of those who speak so glibly of a Petrine doctrine and a Pauline doctrine, as if Peter and Paul were teaching diverse doctrines and leading separate groups in the primitive congregation of God?
In the fourth chapter of 1 Corinthians, the apostle reaches the summit of his reasoning relative to the basic error of thought which produced the lines of cleavage in the body. With reference to what has preceded he says, "I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us to live according to scripture, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." The crowning act of deflation for egotism is found in the questions, "Who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?"
With this the apostle paints a graphic picture of the difference between the life of ease in the Corinthian congregation and the hardships and toils endured by the apostles. However, this was not written to shame and embarrass them, but rather to admonish them as his beloved children. He points out that it was his love for them which caused him to send Timothy to remind them of his ways in Christ as he taught in every community of the saints. Some of his opposers were arrogantly asserting that Paul sent Timothy because he was afraid to come personally. To demonstrate his lack of cowardice he declares that he will come soon, and when he arrives, he will find not the arrogant talk but the power of these bold asserters. It is at this juncture, the apostle sets forth the nature of the kingdom. "The kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power."
When Paul arrived in Corinth and confronted these arrogant talkers, two divergent philosophies came face to face to clash with each other. On one side were the polished speakers, the haughty philosophers, supercilious, impertinent and unabashed. To them the advance of the kingdom depended upon the well turned phrase, the vaunting and pretentious language of pride. On the other side was the ill-clad, buffeted and homeless apostle, his hands calloused by daily toil and his fingers blackened with the prick of awl and needle. But his mission was not to match wits nor to test words; he would test the power of the arrogant boasters.
No one can read the first four chapters of this epistle without being conscious of the difference in these two concepts. One is characterized by such phrases as "eloquent wisdom," "lofty words," and "plausible words of wisdom." The other is described as foolish, weak, low and despised in the world, but it is the power of God. It is "not a wisdom of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away."
The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power! Every attempt of men to establish organizations for the purpose of polishing a select group of clergymen is promoted by the mistaken idea that eloquent and plausible words of wisdom are essential to the perpetuity of the kingdom. If this were the case, the Son of man would have chosen the scholastics of his day to herald the truth. Instead those who listened to the apostles perceived that they were "unlearned and ignorant men." The word idiotes means "a private or common person, an unprofessional man or layman, an unskilled person." It is the word which is translated "ignorant" in the quotation. Meyer says the two terms are practically identical, "the double designation being intended to express the idea very fully, destitute of all rabbinic culture, strangers to theological learning."
The first "Christian College" was started in Alexandria, Egypt, about A.D. 180. Its two chief objectives were to provide a Christian atmosphere in which the young could be educated, and to train and prepare talented young men to preach. The learned and erudite city of Alexandria had the greatest library of ancient times, said to have contained three quarters of a million volumes, and the site of the school was thus believed to be excellent. It was thought by many that Christianity could not withstand the onslaughts and ridicule of the educated satirists and cultivated representatives of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophic schools, and that fluent men in the church needed to be trained to meet the opposition upon its own ground.
The first president was a converted heathen philosopher, Pantaenus, and his immediate successor in A.D. 189, was Clement, another converted heathen philosopher. In A.D. 202, the renowned scholar and universalist, Origen, assumed the post which he held for thirty years, and during his regime the school was promoted to its highest peak in prosperity and popularity. Two of Origen's students succeeded their master as president, Heracles and Dionysius in succession holding the presidency. The last teacher was Didymus in A.D. 395, and by the time he came to the position, the catechetical school had succeeded in leading the Christian world on the road to apostasy, so that Mosheim correctly branded the institution as "the grave of primitive Christianity."
Men seem to learn but little from history. Moved with pride, swept with unreasoning fears, in every generation there are those who spend their time and money to erect the same institutions and to perpetuate their errors. There has never been a human organization started to protect the church of God that did not eventually betray it and bring disaster to it. Men have yet to learn that "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power" and that God's power has not decreased nor degenerated.
The most serious aspect of this problem is that when one sets up his own conduct in matters of indifference as the basis of judgment and criticism of his brethren, he unconsciously dethrones Jesus, and enthrones himself as a judge. A recognition of this prompted James to write: "Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?" (James 4:11,12).
The limited view that the kingdom of God has been inaugurated to provide an arena of disputation over personal scruples, has long aggravated the body of our Lord, and in many cases has turned the church into a battleground of fratricidal strife instead of a realm of brotherhood. To offset such a condition in his own day, the apostle wrote, "For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14:17). Note again the contrast. On one side is food and drink; on the other side righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The writing of dogmas relating to food and drink, the attempt to force personal views in this realm on others to the destruction of peace and joy; all of this has been a problem through the years. Inasmuch as we should not ignore the context which provides the setting for such a definitive statement, we propose to examine the teaching of Romans, chapter 14.
The chapter is introduced with the instruction, "As for the man who is weak in faith welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions." The expression "weak in faith" does not imply a weakness in belief in Jesus, but rather implies, from the context, one who entertains certain scruples and who does not seem to realize that our relationship to the Christ is maintained by faith rather than by our attitude toward matters of indifference. There is always a grave danger that those who are strong in discernment and perception will hold in contempt those whom they deem to be overly scrupulous about such things. It will be seen, however, that these are to welcome the one who is weak in faith. The term "welcome" implies more than mere toleration. It means to receive unto the fellowship and partnership which intimately welds the whole community of saints into a unit.
The motive with which one acts is always important in the spiritual realm. Thus, the strong are not to receive the weak to sit in judgment upon their thoughts or to judge their opinions. No opinion should ever be made the basis of fellowship, none should ever be made a test of fellowship. There is room inside the circle of fellowship for a variety of opinions upon matters which do not affect our salvation. It is wrong for the one who holds such an opinion to force it upon others and disrupt the peace and unity which ought to prevail; it is wrong for the one who does not hold the opinion to make it a subject of dispute or controversy. They should welcome each other since God has welcomed them both.
Two examples in which love should cover differences of opinion are cited by the apostle in the chapter under review. One is the matter of eating meats, the other that of attaching special importance to certain days. It is not to be concluded that these are the only two subjects in the category, but rather that the principles enunciated with reference to them will be equally applicable in all matters of the same nature. Wisdom must be exercised in determining what matters belong in the category.
In the primitive ecclesia of God, the subject of eating meats was one which occupied much attention. It was a common practice to dedicate an animal which was to be slaughtered for food to an idol. The blessing of the god or goddess was sought, and a choice portion of the meat might even be presented to the pagan priests for their consumption, while the residue was sold in the meat market to any purchaser. Of course it was easy for an informed person to reason that an idol was nothing but a product of human superstition, since there was but one true God, therefore, the sacrifice of an animal to the idol was only a ridiculous procedure which did not affect the quality of the meat. Such a person might purchase meat anywhere without violation of conscience.
But the problem was complicated by the fact that many who had been reared in a pagan atmosphere did not possess such knowledge, and upon seeing a brother with power of perception eating at a feast where they served meat offered to idols, the weak one might conclude that service to idols was not prohibited by God, and as a result would fall into idolatrous practices. It was a consideration of such possibilities coupled with other things which caused some primitive Christians to appease their conscience by becoming vegetarians.
Thus the apostle wrote "One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables." He was not particularly concerned as to what they ate, but he was concerned about their personal attitudes toward each other. There are always grave dangers to fellowship when there are such differences of opinion. The man whose belief will allow him to eat anything is always liable to sneer at the one whose scruples he regards as extreme and straightlaced. He tends to hold in contempt the over-particular and squeamish practices of the other. At the same time the man who is a vegetarian, and who considers the eating of meats dedicated to an idol as idolatry, is inclined to make it a test of fellowship. The temptation to judge a brother who differs from us, and especially one who feels he can justifiably do things we cannot do, is an ever present one. The weak are always more sensitive and quick to judge than the strong, and if everyone does not accept their particular pattern they conclude that it is because of an impure heart.
But God forbids the strong to despise the weak, or the weak to judge the strong. He offers two reasons. First, God has welcomed them both, and since he has done so, they are obligated to welcome each other. Both are recipients of divine grace and both are obligated to respect each other. Secondly, they do not belong to each other, but to God. It is not the business of a man to step across the fence and tell another man's servant how to plow his master's field. He is out of his place and trespasses if he does so. The apostle writes, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another ? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand." In other words, acceptability to the Master does not depend upon what food a man eats, "for food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do" (1 Cor.8:8).
The esteem for certain days is the second example produced. Both among Jewish and Gentile converts there was some recognition of sacred days. The Christian religion makes no provision for any holy day whatsoever. No day was counted as more sacred than any other so far as the new covenant is concerned. But some of the Jewish Christians greatly esteemed certain of their national holidays and holy days and still observed them with special regard. There is little doubt that the first disciples of the Master in Jerusalem continued to keep the sabbath as well as to attach significance to the first day of the week, after their Pentecostal experience. They also continued to celebrate their other festal occasions. There were others who treated every day alike, making no distinction in them. The apostle says that each is to be convinced in his own mind. The emphasis is as shown.
If a Jew accepts the Messiah and he wishes, as a Jew, to esteem the Passover, Hanukkah, or other special days, it is his right to do so. He cannot bind their observance upon others, but his liberty in Jesus will allow him to esteem them as sacred, provided he does not violate the law of Christ in his observance. This privilege is his by reason of his relationship to the Lord, and must not be abridged or denied by reason of his relationship to his brethren. We do not live to ourselves, but to the Lord; we do not die to ourselves but to the Lord. Whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. We do not belong to each other as we belong to the Lord. We are related to each other in the spirit, but we are related only because all of us belong to the Lord. There is a realm in which we are answerable to no man on earth. In that area, we are not subject to the judgment of men, but to the judgment of God.
In view of these facts, and since the observation of days and eating of meats are matters incidental to our Christian relationship, we should be sure to place them in the proper perspective. For this reason the inspired apostle asks, "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God...So each one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:10-12). This is not inserted to teach the universality or certainty of judgment, but its individuality. Since each is to give account of himself to God it is not necessary that he be accountable unto his brethren in advance of God's judgment.
It is at this juncture in his letter the apostle lays down great and abiding principles to protect the consciences of all and to save the congregation of God from dissension and disintegration. The disregard of these principles has been the cause of tragic schisms in the past. We will do well to enumerate and study them.
1. Instead of judging another we should rather turn our attention to judging self to determine if we are the means of causing another to fall. The apostle seems to recognize that there are those of such temperament they will judge someone, and his recommendation is that all such judge themselves and their conduct. The one who ate vegetables only for fear of defilement, should not judge the one who ate meat, because the day was coming when God would judge them both. On the contrary, the one who ate meat was not to exercise his liberty with arrogant disregard for the feelings of others. To insist upon the exercise of his right regardless of its effect would be a denial of the great law of love which is the essence of the Christian religion.
The insistence upon the right to eat what one pleased could well be the means of destroying another. This could be done by two ways. The weak brother might be driven completely from the fellowship and thus be lost, or he might be emboldened to eat meat in tribute to idols and thus be condemned for idolatry. So the apostle writes, "If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are not walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died." When personal liberty and love for others reach a conflict or crisis, there is but one answer possible to a child of God, denial of self for the welfare of others.
2. Personal conviction with reference to a thing affects our responsibility in regard to that thing. "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks that it is unclean." What we think about a thing regulates what it is to us personally. This does not require that we conclude that the Lord Jesus had given Paul specific instructions pertaining to meats and kindred matters. He knew from the tenor and nature of the kingdom of the Messiah that it was not concerned about ceremonial distinction is between various types of food. Under the Mosaic economy an animal had to possess certain arbitrary marks or habits to be considered worthy of human consumption, and a differentiation was made between the eating habits of the chosen ones and other nations. The eating of certain things was a part of the system of holiness.
Under the new covenant such distinctions have been abolished. "Nothing is unclean in itself." Christians are free to eat what they please. This does not mean that they may not have a preference for certain kinds of food, or that they are obligated to eat every kind of meat. Such a meaning would violate the very thing under discussion which is personal liberty. It would be as much of an abridgement of freedom to force one to eat something he did not want as to compel him to abstain from something he wanted to eat. "Unclean" is used in the ceremonial sense as under the Mosaic dispensation. Certain animals were unclean to the Jews because of legal declaration, not because of the nature of the animal or its flesh.
But the great lesson to be derived here lies in the fact that if one esteems a thing to be unclean it is unclean to him. It may not be unclean to others or to God, but it is unclean to the one whose heart so regards it. Conscience is not a guide but an arbiter. It is a restraining influence intended to keep us in the path which reason tells us is right. Our reasoning may be wrong, but if so, it must be altered by additional investigation of facts and data. We are not at liberty to bend our conscience and violate it against conviction. To do so will weaken it until it is useless as a safeguard. Even if a thing is right in itself, it is wrong for one to do it against his conscience. It becomes a sin to the one who so acts.
3. "So do not let what is good to you be spoken of as evil." This places an additional restraint upon the exercise of personal liberty. A thing which is harmless in itself and which appears good to one may be the means of creating confusion, strife and every evil work if persisted in without regard for the attitude of others. No Christian will insist upon doing that which is harmful, offensive or obnoxious to his brethren. His first thought is not for his personal indulgence or gratification but for the majestic cause to which he has been called. He will not deliberately and maliciously hurt that cause merely for his own satisfaction.
When one engages in a course of conduct which provokes undue criticism from others, and causes his brethren to speak out in denunciation, frequently railing and untimely controversy results. This leads to strife and factionalism with the result that the unconverted world reproaches the religion of the Messiah. How often in the past it has been said by unbelievers that "the congregation of Christians spends its energy in fighting and bickering and makes a sham out of its plea for peace." Often such conditions are the results of the stubborn insistence of some implacable person who insists upon doing what he pleases in flagrant disregard for others.
If all Christians had recognized the import and importance of this rule in the past, the pathway of religion would not be strewn with the wreckage of one time noble efforts. In reference to matters of indifference, we may be conscious of the rightness of our views, but we should be willing to surrender them for the common good and to avoid unnecessary recrimination and reproach.
4. "It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble." This rendering in the Revised Standard Version is interesting indeed. It presents the matter from a positive rather than a negative standpoint. The apostle does not say "It is not right to eat meat or drink wine." Instead, he says, "It is right not to do so." There is nothing wrong in itself with eating meat, drinking wine, or with many other things. They are questions of privilege. But "whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31). It is not to the glory of God to give needless offense and by such means to cause men to be lost. "Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved" (1 Cor. 10:32, 33). We are not, for the sake of food, to destroy the work of God.
5. "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God." The last two verses of Romans 14 are often wrested from their place and meaning by shallow reasoners. The word "faith" in these verses has to do with one's opinion and personal conviction in such matters of indifference as God has introduced in the chapter. It is a private opinion as to keeping of days, eating of meats, drinking wine, etc. Such opinions are to be cherished as personal and private. They are not to be brought forward and agitated among the saints to the disruption of fellowship or destruction of those who differ.
In the primitive congregations of saints one might eat meat at home and do so without harm, but to bring it to the love feast of the congregation would be to arouse strife and contention. Opinions, or beliefs, on these matters, are to be held to one's self before God. God knows if one eats with a clear conscience. Eating meat does not commend one to God, nor does abstaining from it do so. It is a matter of indifference with God. Therefore, eating meat will not offend God. He is not concerned with the eating but with the conscience. But the weak brother is not concerned with the conscience but with the eating, so he will be offended. Therefore, one might eat when only God's eye beholds who could not so indulge under the inspection of others.
"Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves." We judge ourselves by our consciences either accusing or excusing our conduct. That man is indeed happy whose conscience does not censure him for any course of action. Many there are who engage in practices which are condemned by their own consciences. They entertain honest doubts about the advisability of a certain habit or pursuit, but they persist in it regardless of consequences. They know there could be nothing wrong about abstaining from such things but they continue to do them, outraging their inner selves. Such persons are not happy here and will not be happy in the world to come. If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything (1 John 3:20).
"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Faith, in this instance, is the opposite of doubt. It refers to a personal conviction that a thing is right or wrong. If a man eats meat while doubting that it is right to do so, it becomes wrong to him. It is not the meat that is a sin, nor is it the act of eating meat that is a sin. If such were the case it would be a sin for any person to partake of it. But the sin is in the violation of conscience. It is not the deed, but the doer, that is condemned. It is obvious that in the category of things discussed in this chapter, a thing may be a sin for one person which would not be a sin for another. That category covers things that are not wrong in and of themselves. There is nothing about a day, or the esteeming of certain days above others, which is wrong. There is nothing about meat which is wrong or sinful. Each man is to be fully convinced in his own mind regarding such things, and he may act according to his personal conscience.
It is further obvious that a thing may be a sin for one to do in one part of his Christian career which would be perfectly harmless and legitimate in another part of that career. A man might have a conscientious scruple against a certain thing when he first obeys the gospel, but by study and meditation, he may become convinced that it is legitimate. If he engaged in it at the time his conscience condemned him it would be a sin, but when through education he becomes more discerning, he could do it without sinning. The expression "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" simply means that anything which one does in violation of his conscience is a sin to him.
The thing of importance to be remembered in this dissertation is the statement "For the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; he who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men." There is ever a tendency to make the kingdom of God degenerate into mere materialistic discussions. There are always those who would make it an arena of controversy over matters of indifference. The pet fads and foibles are taught and discoursed upon until the conclusion might be reached that the whole purpose of heaven was culminated by certain dietary ideas and ideals.
The congregation of God in many places is a laughingstock. The citizens of the kingdom have spent their time verbally berating each other over extreme views of one kind and another until serious men and women have become disgusted with their cavilling and bickering, and the church itself is disgraced by its fighting and quarreling. We need to catch a vision of the human dignity, magnanimity of soul, breadth of purpose, and glory of being which should characterize those who are followers of Christ. Then we can help to fulfil on earth the will of God as it is done in heaven.