Romans 14 The Day, The Herbs, The Unclean

Romans 14 The Day, The Herbs, The Unclean The themes of Romans 14 are respect and conscientiousness. In regard to respect, we ought to give those we differ from us the benefit of the doubt in regard to their spirituality. We are not their judges. And the one that is their Judge also desires to justify them. In regard to conscientiousness, each man will be judged based on what he knows to be true. A man may sin against the Lord by doing something that he doubts to be allowable even if that activity would otherwise be innocent. These moral lessons and timeless principles have the utmost value and are useful in any congregation today. But some confusion exists regarding the examples that Paul uses to flesh out his teachings on respect and conscientiousness. In short, the scenario that illustrates the principles involves two classes of Christians. One class that is weaker in the faith also tends to dispute on doubtful questions. They make a case for eating “herbs” while the other class believes it is permissible to eat “all things.” The herb eaters also esteems “one day” above “another.” Generic or Specific? Some understand the example scenario as being highly generic. Any one who eats herbs as a religious conviction, anyone who honors one day (as Sabbath) above others, would in this view be viewed as those weaker Christians that ought to be respected. Others understand the example scenario as being specific in nature. A real and identifiable class of Christians were advocating a doubtful and identifiable position and causing arguments. In this view the chapter takes an important stand on the specific topic of the keep-the-law-of-Moses error. A little Bible information that was known to all in Paul’s day and known to few in our own could settle the question of whether the chapter should be understood as generic or as specific. The New Testament Issue Christians from Jerusalem differed from Paul on the question of the Law of Moses. This is the reality that forms the background for much of the New Testament. This argument was eventually settled by the counsel in Acts 15. Paul had been right. What was the position of his opposers? But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the

law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing . . . Ac 15:5-7 From this passage it is apparent that there was enough confusion to cause a lot of arguing. Galatia, Colossi, Ephesus, Rome The confused ones had at one time included the apostles. In Galatians 2 the apostle Peter had been influenced by such persons “from Jerusalem” to feign a fear of becoming unclean by eating with Gentiles. Gal. 2:12. And, in fact, the entire church of Galatia had been confused by this same class. They had accepted another gospel that relied on a covenant of works and was represented by “Jerusalem which now is.” Galatians 3:1-3; 4:25. The men of the Colossian church had similar trouble. The law of Moses included various washings and ceremonies of respect for “holy” days. Men were judging nonconformists. Col. 2:14-16. The Ephesian church had similar trouble. Paul reminded them that the gospel had broken down the middle wall between them, as Gentiles, and the Jews of Jerusalem. And how did it break down the wall? By taking away the “law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Eph 2:15. What do we know about these troublers of the churches? For one thing, they argued with Paul and Barnabas. For another, they traveled from the heart of Israel to reach the areas with gentile churches. And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Ac 15:1-2. The audience of Romans included them that “know the law” (Ro 7:1). When we find that immediately after the introduction Paul addresses the religious sin problems of those who claim to be circumcised Jews and who boast in the law (2:12-3:4), we understand that the plague doctrine mentioned in almost all of Paul’s epistles had made it to Rome also. The Confusing Part The Christians who advocated keeping the Mosaic law had one confusing fact at their disposal. It seemed that Jesus had authorized Christians to keep Passover. When Jesus last kept it he had bidden his disciples to commemorate the event. But how would a Christian keep Passover? The original directions involved the eating of bitter herbs and a sacrificed lamb and unleavened bread. Exodus 12:8. And if a man was not “clean” he could not partake until a later date when he would be clean. Numbers 9:7-11. It was a highly esteemed day by keepers of the feast.

And it was not at all esteemed by those who understood Paul’s message that the rites and rituals under Moses had been replaced by a different class of rituals (baptism and the Lord’s Supper) under the gospel. This issue was big in Rome. It was the date of Passover, in fact, that divided the church in Rome from that in Constantinople hundreds of years later. Romans 14 So when persons who understand this Bible history and background come to Romans 14 the chapter does not seem so difficult to understand. There is only one Bible topic that combines the elements of Romans 14. 1.

A topic that was doubtful and a source of arguable in the churches like

2. 3. 4.

A topic that involved the question of eating “herbs” A topic that involved the honoring/not honoring of a certain “day.” A topic that involved the esteeming of things/persons as clean/unclean.

Rome

And that topic is that of the keeping of Passover, and by extrapolation, keeping the other feasts. In the early chapters the book of Romans clearly addressed the question of the 10 Commandments and concluded that they are enforced by faith (Romans 3:31), that commandment keepers will be justified in the judgment (Rom 2:12-16), that we are obligated to keep the 10 Commandments (Romans 13) and that it is by knowing this spiritual and holy law that we can know what “sin” is (Roman 7:7, 12, 14). In short, Paul taught in Romans, as in Galatians and Colossians and Ephesians and as the apostles did in Acts 15, that while we are to obey God’s commandments, we are no longer to follow the symbolic ceremonies. Understood this way, Romans fits in with the rest of the New Testament. What if someone were to urge this as a reason for being careless in diet and heedless of the Commandment that begins “remember”? They would be pitting Paul against himself. Even if that were inadvertent, it would be unfortunate. The blessing that comes with obedience to God’s Law is countered by the warning that men’s doctrines, and praise from disobedient persons, can make worship vain. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matthew 15:8-9. Conclusion: Some men were esteeming Passover and the week-long feast of unleavened bread. Others felt that there was nothing special or holy about these days. The former class celebrated by avoiding defilement so they could be ceremonially “clean.” And

they ate the bitter “herbs” that went with the rituals (and not the lamb because sacrifices ended at the cross). Paul urged patience with these conscientious persons, but did not encourage anyone to allow them to start arguments that might promote their mistaken views. And never did Paul expect that anyone would think that he was speaking about Sabbath or healthy living. Everyone knew what the issues were. And to them, Romans 14 was tactful, yet easy to understand. Why does it confuse us? We know more about human teachings than about scripture facts. ---Additional Facts If there was a point of jealous regard for law among the Jews, it was the Sabbath. Jesus was routinely accused of breaking the Sabbath. (And he responded to those charges by teaching that it is lawful to “do well” on the Sabbath. See Matthew 12:112.) And Jesus defended his relation to the wall by saying “think not that I am come to destroy the law, but to keep it. For truly I say to you that till heaven and earth pass away” not one particle of the law would pass away. Matthew 5:17-18. But the Jews that opposed the Christians and Paul though-out the book of Acts, though they repeatedly brought up the question of circumcision, never did there address the issue of Sabbath. This is significant evidence of a secondary type that Sabbath was kept by the Gentile believers. And when Gentiles read the gospel of John they encountered “Sabbath” with no word of explanation. (John 5:9, 10, 16, 18; 7:22-23; 9:14, 16; 19:31). But the feasts and festivals were introduced as being particularly Jewish. (See John 7:2). The Passover itself was introduced this way three times before it was included as a familiar part of the narrative. The latter of these three also alludes to the purification rituals connected with Passover. Joh 2:13 And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, Joh 6:4 And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. Joh 11:55 And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves.