Romans Fourteen

By Darrell W. Bolin

[Page 61

     It seems to me that several brethren use Romans 14 as a dumping ground for a multitude of opinions. One brother puts it: "All of our divisive brotherhood issues, regardless of faction or segment, which are not required to be corrected by 'rebaptism,' fall into the category of the meat question in Romans 14." Included in these opinions we have "Bible colleges, the modern pastor system, one cup, individual cups, classes, no classes, fermented wine, grape juice, Herald of Truth, orphan homes, and a host of others too numerous to mention." I do not believe these fall into the category of meats as presented in Romans 14 and I want to tell you why. I am going to include "days" in this thesis because they were part of the problem among Christians in Rome.

     Under the law that God gave through Moses, certain days were to be esteemed above others and certain foods were not to be eaten. For example, we have the holy sabbath, the days of unleavened bread, the passover, Pentecost, and the feast of tabernacles. In the realm of meat one could not eat rabbit, pork or catfish, to name a few.

     Those who were under the Mosaic system could not, with divine approval, say, "In my opinion it is all right with the Lord for you to plow your field, work your oxen, or do any other form of work that you do on the other six days of the week. The sabbath does not have to be kept holy." Nor could one say, "It is my opinion that there is nothing wrong with eating rabbit, pork or catfish."

     Those who expressed opinions in such a manner might cause others to sin and lose their lives. Expressing opinions where the Lord has given specific legislation is dangerous business. If this is true, there is a time when opinions are unlawful.

     In Romans 14 Paul deals with the problem of meats and days among Roman Christians. Some of these were vegetarians. Others were not. Some believed all days were on the same level. Others felt some days were more important. Paul sets forth his apostolic legislation on these matters.

     First, it should be clear that God has lifted His legislation on meats and days. The former restrictions are no longer binding. If a Christian wants to be a vegetarian it is all right with the Lord. On the other hand, if he wants to eat meat, this is also permissible. In the area of foods and days God has declared liberty.

     It is in these two areas of liberty that Christians may exercise their judgment or opinions. The areas of liberty declared by God are not based on man's opinions but on God's legislation. And it is in these two areas that brethren may have their opinions. Let us see how this operates in Romans 14.

     It should be obvious that the vege-

[Page 62]

tarian was such before his conversion to Christ. Now that he is in Christ it is perfectly all right with the Lord for him to remain such. His manner of life has shackled his conscience and he cannot eat meat even though the Lord has declared liberty in the realm of foods. It would be sinful if he did eat in view of his conscience on the matter.

     The question that naturally follows is this, "Would this brother have the divine approval to expose his views to others and emphasize that it is wrong and sinful to eat meat?" If he does, would not this negate the liberty declared by the Lord? This man is entitled to his opinion about food. However, he is not free to advocate it as binding on other Christians or to build a religious sect around it.

     The one who believes he can eat all kinds of food does so on the basis of his understanding that the Lord has lifted the restrictions or has declared liberty. It could be he was a strict Hebrew before his conversion and even now his conscience will not permit him to eat pork or catfish. However, this is not due to the fact that God has so decreed. It is his conscience.

     On the other hand, we have a brother with no conscientious scruples. He can eat any kind of food. Even then he uses his own judgment as to the foods he wants to eat. He has the freedom to select crabs or pork, and reject rabbit, beef and liver. God has declared liberty in the area of foods and has left it up to the opinion of the individual to accept what he likes and reject what he dislikes. Whatever the case may be, neither can bind his views upon the other and neither has the right to establish a meat-eating or herb-eating congregation.

     The same is true of days. To one brother some days are more important. They are esteemed more highly and so observed. To another, all days fall into the same category. But the observing of days must be in harmony with the Christian life. The individual has been granted liberty by the Lord. In this area of liberty he has the right to exercise his opinion pertaining to days. He is not free to bind his opinion upon others.

     In this realm of liberty a brother is restricted if what he does becomes a stumblingblock to another. Paul legislates in this chapter on meats and days. No one is to bind his views upon another because God has also received him. So exercise your opinions to the fullest in the area of liberty as found in Romans 14.

     It seems impossible to put the variety of practices mentioned in the fore- part of this article into Romans 14 under the category of meats. If this be not true, surely we ought to be able to see that such practices would have to be subject to the regulations laid down by Romans 14. May we put into practice Paul's teaching, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Romans 14: 5).

--------------------------