Romans (Lecture 50) -- Romans 14. What Was the Existing Controversy?

[Rebbe]

PAUL'S LETTER TO THE ROMAN CHRISTIANS (50)
Analytical Commentary on Romans

ROMANS 14 WHAT WAS THE EXISTING CONTROVERSY?

Copyright © BRI/IMCF 2018 All Rights Reserved Worldwide by Les Aron Gosling,
Messianic Lecturer (BRI/IMCF)

Solomon writes in Proverbs 13.10, "By pride comes only contention, but with the well-advised is wisdom."

There are numerous Christian irregularities of interpretation concerning the contents of Paul's Letter to the Roman Christians and chapter 14 especially. Most Christians use arguments against the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath which they say are found within this chapter, and still others claim that Paul diminishes any regard for the dietary laws that were known by Noah in Genesis and which as principles of healthcare were incorporated into the Sinai Covenant as amplified in Deuteronomy 14 and Leviticus 11.

But is this notion credible? Moreover, is it true?

Let's see! Firstly let us read the text as it stands.

THE TEXT
"Welcome cordially those who are weak in conviction, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions [as opposed to truth. The Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) translates, "not for the purpose of setting him straight in arguments"; Kenneth Wuest translates, "be giving a cordial welcome, not with a view to a critical analysis of his inward reasonings"]. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honour of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honour of the Lord and give thanks to God. We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Messiah died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. So then, each of us will be accountable. Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of another. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Yeshua that nothing is unclean [koinos, common] in itself; but it is unclean [koinos, common] for anyone who thinks it unclean [koinos, common]. If your brother or sister is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Messiah died. So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the holy Spirit. The one who thus serves Messiah is acceptable to God and has human approval. Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual edification. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean [katharos, uncontaminated], but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God. Blessed are those who have no reason to condemn themselves because of what they approve. But those who have doubts are condemned if they eat, because they do not act from conviction; for whatever does not proceed from conviction is sin" (Romans 14) [Some ancient mss here add Rom 16.25-27].

BEFORE WE BEGIN
Before we actually begin, we need to be reminded of the importance of the writings of Paul in Scripture. We may all have differing opinion on this matter of the writings of Paul, but it was the apostle Peter who made the issue an issue. He wrote,

"And account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him has written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction" (2 Pet 3.15,16).

According to Peter, who was not originally in overly friendly accord with Paul in his earlier years, Paul's writings ARE SCRIPTURE. So whatever it was that he intended in Romans 14, we had better understand. This is only appropriate.

SO HERE WE ARE
So here we are at the end of the age. We await the manifestation of the LORD Yeshua the Messiah, the Nazarene King of the Jews, to rule the entirety of this rebellious planet once and for all by the MIGHT and POWER of His WORD.

So here we are at the end of the age and living in a civilisation denominated as western [European] Christianity. But take a good long hard look about us at the universal church, and what do we see? Do we see an actively engaged Messianic Christian movement zealously focused upon The Way of Life as demonstrated by Our Lord Yeshua and exemplified by the evangelism that so characterised the Christian ekklesia of the first century? When we open our Bibles and read the instructions of the Lord to his disciples are we witnessing that same zeal about us today? Well, yes, in some areas but to a very limited degree. But here in Australia we are watching the rapid decline of historic denominations having evangelistic outreach in fact what we are seeing on a weekly basis are church buildings closing enmasse, and whole congregations of Christians in particular suburban regions are merging together for the purpose of survival.

Yet, how many of these believers in Christ are in fact idolaters, false Christians? Christianity today far outranks Hinduism with its rank idolatry. This is a fact substantiated in Hastings' Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, VII, 1908, 111. Not just idolatrous activities but false teaching abounds. Christians in the hundreds of millions have accepted the disgusting doctrine of a pre-trib Rapture of the church. To add to the list of anomalies there is an abundance of baptised paganism such as Xmas, Easter, Lent, Lady Day, infant baptisms, the keeping of the wrong day as the time when Christ rose from the dead, and the wrong day for his crucifixion, we have church hierarchies which Yeshua forbade amongst his followers, and we have accepted the colour black to equate with holiness. And the list of aberrations goes on... So we should not be at all surprised at discovering that anti-Sabbath arguments based on Romans 14 are legion.

FINAL PROTESTANT ARGUMENT AGAINST SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH OBSERVANCE COLLAPSES UNDER NEW RESEARCH
If only people would stop and actually read and question what it is that they are reading. After all, Paul was a Jewish believer who was a major player in the Jewish Yeshua Messianic Movement of the mid to late Second Temple Period when the Christians were still largely accepted by the Jews as Jews! The legal separation of Christianity from the Judaisms (plural) of the period did not take place until the second century CE after the Bar Kokhba War against Rome. We would expect Paul to have been an observer of the Sabbath day, as it is expressed in the Lukan Acts where Paul unashamedly admits that he has never done anything against the Jewish people and their traditions or customs. This would most certainly be an acknowledgment that he never broke the Sabbath regulations and rules (Acts 28.17). If this is the case, and it is, why would ministers of the Gospel and scholars/expositors claim otherwise by reading into the Romans 14 text something that it clearly and obviously NOT there!?!

I will go a step further in my contention. Nowhere in Romans do we find a scant mention of the seventh day Sabbath. Paul is completely silent about it. Why is this so? Because there was no need to discuss the subject of resting on Shabbat. For the simple reason all Rome was at rest on the seventh day. Let me explain.

According to modern Gentile Protestant Christian understanding, the seventh day Sabbath was done away by Christ himself, as far as an observance for NT believers is concerned. In fact this has been the official stance of the major segments of the church for about 1700 years or at least since the period of the sun worshiping Roman emperor, Constantine. There are, however, a growing number of Christian theologians and academics who are honest enough to publicly recognise that neither Yeshua nor his apostles ever abrogated the Sabbath, and that the early Jewish-Christian Church (really, Messianic Community) continued to observe it as God's holy day and as an integral part of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments).

Indeed, historical secular records plainly show that the Sabbath was observed by Gentiles in both the Irish-Celtic, the Scottish and the Abyssinian churches, to name only three, centuries after the Great Apostasy of the fourth century.

Until recently, however, embarrassed sabbatarian believers have not been able to explain why the NT is silent in regards trials and hardships that slaves in the Roman empire would have encountered in relation to Sabbath-observance. If the Sabbath was still being maintained, Paul's epistles (not just Romans) are strangely silent on their problems, and therefore it is assumed the Sabbath was not expected to be celebrated. (See for example, a classic statement by a certain Robert Brinsmead: "...Sabbath observance [was] impossible for lower-class Gentiles, many of whom were slaves" in The Status of Jesus Re-examined, Verdict, Essay 1A,4, 1998). But is Paul's silence truly an indication that the Sabbath was not being kept, at least by slaves?  

Firstly, it must be recognised that the Jewish religion was protected by Rome as I brought out in our last lecture on the contents of Romans 13. Adherents to Judaism had inviolable rights, and the Roman State sanctioned their Torah observance. Judaism was in all points a legal religion (religio lecita), that is, it was officially recognised by Rome. Therefore, the Jews had absolutely no problems in observing the seventh day as holy time. The Romans protected Jewish religious expectations. This fact has always been understood by ecclesiastical scholars. The Jews were so popular (prior to their uprisings in 70 CE, 115 CE and again in 132 CE) that virtually everyone in the ancient Graeco-Roman world copied their traditions and customs, at least to one degree or another.  

Indeed, the Stoic philosopher Seneca lamented that "the customs of this accursed nation [the Jews] have gained such influence that they are now received throughout the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors... the greater part of the [Gentile] people go through a ritual not knowing why they do so."

Likewise Josephus, the Jewish historian, confirmed: "There is not one Greek or barbarian nor a single nation to whom our custom of abstaining from work on the seventh day has not spread, and where the fasts and the lighting of lamps and many of our prohibitions in the matter of food are not observed."  

But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Saturn's Day (our Saturday) was the FIRST day of the Roman planetary week and it was followed by the second day of the planetary week dies Solis, the Day of the Sun (our Sunday) -- it was not the other way around.

This arrangement of prime importance of observance for Saturn's day continued until the middle of the second century when dies Solis eventually eclipsed it in prestige.

Saturn's Day was considered by the pagan Romans an unpopular day for engaging in business activities, so much so that Tibullus (writing circa 30 BCE) noted that "the sacred day of Saturn held one back" -- it restricted normal business functions. By the time of Tertullian the Romans had adopted "the Jewish ease and luxury of the Sabbath day rest" on Saturn's Day. The Canaanite church Father noted: "We have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant."

It would naturally follow that Gentile-Christian or Jewish-Christian slaves would not encounter anything less than the same religious freedom Rome extended to all the Jews. What was original Christianity anyway but a lively and popular Messianic movement within the prevalent religion of Judaism?

The Romans would not have differentiated between Jewish Messianism and official Judaism. As such, sabbatarian Christians were granted the same privileges and protection to observe the elements of their Faith in an empire in which Saturn's Day was sacrosanct. As these early records show, sabbatarians could keep the Sabbath without fear of being compelled to violate its expectations of reverence. Paul's silence about Sabbath-related difficulties establishes this to be the case.

DIDN'T PAUL SPEAK OF DAYS AS ALL ALIKE?
If all this is correct, why did Paul say that all days are the same, that there is no difference anymore as far as establishing one day above another? Read again what he actually wrote:

"Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. Those who observe the day, observe it in honour of the Lord" (Rom 14.5,6).

Well, say some, there it is! Proof that Paul did away with the Sabbath day. But the Sabbath is not under discussion here at all! Look again at the text of Romans 14. Look at the words "eat" "eating" "vegetables" "food" "meat" and "drink." Take a biro and underscore these words -- altogether seventeen of them associated with eating and drinking and then take another look at Romans 14! There was a highly provocative controversy going on in the midst of the Messianic congregations over dietary issues involving food and drink and special days on which fasting was to occur!

Some apparently new converts to the Faith, as Paul speaks of them as weak brethren: certainly not weak morally (as has been suggested by some expositors) but weak as in "new" were advocating vegetarianism, strict adherence to fasting on certain days of the week, and avoidance of alcohol. It was getting out of control, and Paul found it necessary to discuss the situation. So important was his intervention on these issues that he needed an entire chapter of his letter to spell out his decisions regarding it! In fact its no different in our modern day and age, as we at the IMCF have found out in recent years. And I had to make a hard and fast decision on it all some years back (and I based my firm decision entirely on Romans 14).

IMPORTANT: Please bear in mind that Paul never excommunicated anybody over differences in doctrine, nor in matters of dietary opinion. Yet I have witnessed it in a number of churches that I previously had the utter misfortune to attend. I have personally seen believers "muscled-out" over their proclivity toward vegetarianism. Paul certainly did disfellowship people over deportment, over divisiveness, over challenges to his authority (as to the latter so did John -- see 3 Jn 9-12). What we all have to accomplish is to develop, to recognize the need to be appreciative and respectfully cognisant of a person's individual conscience before God.

So here in Romans 14 Paul is concentrating on a discussion relating to specific days on which some members of the Roman assembly were insisting on using in relation to dietary issues and/or neglect of the same, i.e., fasting and/or partial fasting on those days. That this was an issue of the mid-to-late Second Temple period is recognised by all capable scholars of this time period. Jewish sects of the time regulated certain times during the week when these practices were to be maintained. It is corroborated in Luke's Gospel account:

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax-collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax-collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income. But the tax-collector, standing far off, would not even look up to the heavens, but was beating his breast and saying, God, be merciful to me, a sinner! I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted" (Lk 18.9-14).

Notice that the Pharisee scrupulously fasted twice in the week. These fasts were specifically designated to occur on Mondays and Thursdays. A first century Christian document called the Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles encouraged believers to fast weekly on a Wednesday and Friday instead of following the Jewish practice (Didache 8.1,2; Talmud Tractate Taanit 12a; see also Alfred Edersheim, The Life of Christ 11:291). Notice it now from the Didache (lit., teaching):

"And let not your fastings be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and the fifth day of the week; but do ye keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation (the sixth) day."

The reference to the sixth day as the "Preparation" indicates that the Sabbath had a continuance in the church of that time period. The Didache goes on to speak of assembling on the Lord's Day which is usually understood as Sunday, but in the Messianic assemblies the Lord's Day was the Sabbath! Paul's reference in Romans to those who emphasised certain days had nothing to do with the observance or non-observance of the seventh day Sabbath in respect of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue. It has everything to do with the controversy that was going on in the first century Messianic Movement particularly in the very epicentre of the Roman empire. All over nothing more than when and what to eat and when to fast. While advocates of fasting or semi-fasting on particular days days when a full fast was to occur and/or when meat was to be surrendered in favour of a vegetarian fare or semi-vegetarian policy there was another camp whose followers suggested that any day to pursue these notions was acceptable in the eyes of God.

The issue was so highly charged that the Roman assembly was facing division over it. Ambivalence reigned and the situation was irresolute. The strife worsened when older (stronger or more mature) members of the assembly began to attack those new believers who were vegetarian as weak. (Paul agreed with the older Christians that in his view they were weak... but he calls them weak because they were entirely new to The Faith -- Paul does not infer that any of them were weak morally). The crisis needed Paul's urgent intervention to offset the menacing curse of impending sectarianism.

And so Paul addressed the conflict and settled it once and for all in the strongest possible terms. And how did he proceed? The Jewish rabbi settled the dispute, commanding the more mature believers to not become involved in the debate for the very simple reason that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the Messiah.

He adds with conviction, "none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, WE ARE THE LORD'S. For to this end the Messiah both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living" (Rom 14.7-9). Paul insists the Christian of Rome "pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. DO NOT DESTROY THE WORK OF GOD FOR THE SAKE OF FOOD" (Rom 14.19,20).

Quite an effective ploy, by Paul, I would have thought. Bringing everyone back to basics, and back to the reality of what life is really all about.

That Romans 14 constellates around vegetarianism and selected days of fasting is grasped by the translators of the New Life Version (NLV). Example, see vss 5,6 in this admittedly free-style translation. I believe it grants us a proper sense of what Paul was arguing. "One man thinks one day is more important than another. Another man thinks every day is the same. Every man must be sure in his own mind. The man who worships on a special day does it to honor the Lord. The man who eats meat does it to honor the Lord. He gives thanks to God for what he eats. The other man does not eat meat. In this way, he honors the Lord. He gives thanks to God also."

Of course, there are even those who would argue that not only is the Sabbath an issue in Romans 14 but that clean and unclean food is also being challenged.  

DID PAUL ABOLISH THE HEALTH LAWS OF TORAH?
Did the apostle to the Gentiles abolish the health principles of the Torah? Recall that Genesis is the first scroll of the Torah, and it speaks of the understanding the Gentile world had concerning appropriate food consumption before the Noachian Deluge long prior to the giving of the Laws of God to Israel at Sinai (Gen 6.19-22; 7.1-3, 6-9). While we now follow the NEW Covenant, the contents of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 reveal the knowledge the ancient world of Genesis had concerning God's will relating to animal consumption, and these principles were later incorporated into the Sinai package. This way we are able to grasp what it is that God wants us to follow in relation to what creatures are fit for food and which creatures are decidedly not!

But, in the matter of Romans 14 Bible students and scholars alike still pursue the idea that Paul negated the food laws of God. After all, didn't Paul himself assert:

"Everything is indeed CLEAN [other versions, PURE], but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God" (Rom 14.20) and again, "nothing is UNCLEAN in itself, but it is UNCLEAN for anyone who thinks it UNCLEAN" (Rom 14.14).

Actually, no he doesn't. Romans 14.14 is the one single place in the entirety of the AV/KJV where koinos is rendered unclean! But its meaning is NOT unclean but rather common. In verse 20 clean or pure is katharos of uncertain affinity but usually as pure or even clear, better expressed as uncontaminated.

We should ask two questions at this juncture. One question involves our faith, and the other involves our salvation.

Is our faith unclean? Look at Titus 1.4. It reads "To Titus, my own son after the koinos [COMMON] faith...".

Is our salvation unclean? Look at Jude 3. "I gave all diligence to write unto you of the koinos [COMMON] salvation...".

What Paul actually wrote was, in each instance: "Everything is indeed UNCONTAMINATED (Gk., katharos), but it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat; it is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother or sister stumble. The faith that you have, have as your own conviction before God" (Rom 14.20) and again, "nothing is COMMON [Gk., koinos] in itself, but it is COMMON [Gk., koinos] for anyone who thinks it COMMON [Gk. koinos]" (Rom 14.14).

I ought to also point out here for all my students that both koinos and akathartos are to be found in Peter's reply to Yeshua in Acts 10.14. And they are in contrast one to the other, but associated by Peter in his defense. He objects, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is COMMON (koinos) or UNCLEAN (akathartos)."

Make a mental note on paper concerning two Greek words. Firstly, the Greek word koinos is never to be rendered UNCLEAN. It should always be rendered common (ie., something that was sold in the market place after being dedicated to an idol/or idols).

Secondly, the Greek word ak¡thartos is to be rendered UNCLEAN, in the sense of the animals which were differentiated by the Creator God to the patriarch Noah and which were not healthy for human consumption.

It is no less an authority than the great Greek scholar Marvin Vincent who tells us the word is koinos which means common or even defiled but not unclean (Gk., akathartos). In the Levitical sense, as opposed to holy or pure and cf with Mark 7.2 With defiled (common), that is to say, with unwashen hands. Exactly. We are not discussing in any way clean as opposed to unclean foods in the Torah sense, but food that has been exposed to market influences, such as touching the cadaver of a pig, or something sacrificed to an idol. I might say this too, Paul's mention of wine in the Romans 14 context (please note verse 21) is further proof if any is needed that the Jewish rabbi is acknowledging ordinary common (koinos) foods rather than unclean (akathartos) foods in his letter. Wine was never categorised in the Torah (or anywhere else in the sacred Scripture) as unclean. But wine sacrificed or dedicated to a particular god such as Bacchus would have been considered off limits to the abstainers.

What we are dealing with, in respect of foods that are considered common in the writings of Paul, has reference to meat that is sold in the cosmopolitan market place. On occasions wine and other strong drink was also sold in the markets after it had been dedicated to the gods but of course, only that which was left over after the partying in the guilds was finished. We are not speaking about, nor is Paul discussing, clean and unclean meats. Romans 14 has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject!

According to Conybeare and Howson, "those who were abstaining from meat in Rome were probably Christians of Jewish birth, who so feared lest they should (without knowing it) eat meat which had been offered to idols or was otherwise ceremonially unclean (which might easily happen in such a place as Rome) that they abstained from meat altogether. Thus Josephus... mentions some Jewish priests who, from such conscientious scruples, abstained while prisoners in Rome from all animal food. So Daniel and his fellow-captives in Babylon refused the king's meat and wine, and ate pulse alone, that they might not defile themselves (Dan i.8-12). The tone and precepts of the 14th chapter of the Epistle correspond with 1 Cor., viii)" (The Life and Epistles of St Paul, Reprinted 1976, 530, n.2).

Our two scholars Conybeare and Howson have pointed to 1 Corinthians 8. It certainly does throw more light on the vegetarian controversy in Romans 14. So let's go there and see what Paul has written.

THE IMPORTANCE OF 1 CORINTHIANS 8
Paul's first letter to the Greeks in Corinth was penned around the same time as Romans. Scholars inform us that the latter was written from Corinth 57/58 CE, and Corinthians in 55/57 CE delivered from Ephesus. So we would expect that there would be forms of correlation between the two. And indeed there are! For, Paul was writing from Corinth to the Roman Christians, where the issues of vegetarianism, fasting on special days, and abstaining from not just food but meats had been a significant issue. It is apparent to the careful reader that these aberrations were fresh in Paul's mind and therefore the basis for Paul's assessments in Romans 14.

In chapter 8 of 1 Corinthians Paul dwells on the matter of eating meat sacrificed to idols. There were some who insisted that those who ate such foods were themselves contaminated spiritually. Paul's response is to negate these fears about defilement, and he takes pains to stress that in reality there is only One God, and that idols in themselves are a total zero. Now, I personally do not feel that Yeshua's brother James would have fully concurred with Brother Paul on this particular issue but I can assuredly see where he is coming from theologically. One thing for sure in this place you get both sides of a question. At this place we are in a university setting, and therefore we need to always have an open mind especially about the biblical revelation.

If we turn over to 1 Cor 10.25 we will see a reference made by Paul to meat sold in the "shambles" -- makellon in Greek -- or from the slaughter houses or markets.

"Whatever is sold in the shambles [makellon] that eat BUT," and this proviso is so important, "asking no question for conscience sake."

Then he adds qualifications, amplifications dealing with conscience.

"If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake" (verse 27).

But some would ask, what if that meat is pork, or ham, or bacon? What if it includes shark, prawns, or oysters, mussels, crabs, octopus? Well, just a moment please. Let's not introduce something about clean or unclean meats into this section of Paul's writings. He's not talking about what is included in the Torah for humankind's lusts for all kinds of exotic gourmet food experiences. In no way would this be the case. Paul is a rabbi and he was well-skilled in the intentions of the Word of God, especially in regard to what is healthy as opposed to unhealthy and disease ridden. The very next verse points to his mindscape on the subject.

"But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake who revealed this information, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. Conscience I say, not your own, but of the other. For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" (vvs., 27-29).

But why should we have this approach in a situation of this nature? Paul answers directly. "Give nobody offense [he means of course, in matters such as these]... even as I please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED" (1 Cor 10.32,33).

Imagine what kind of a negative reaction would come forth from the person who confided such information to you about eating food sacrificed to idols, only to see your non-interest in such matters and then be himself later on gets converted and learns that you were violating your own conscience and also as a consequence of such deception causing him to do the wrong thing by indulging when you knew better than him at the time? Your reputation as a Christian would be in tatters and he would sum it all up as rank hypocrisy.

With this background let's return to chapter 8. Beginning with verse 4 we read:

"Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Yeshua the Messiah, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Cor 8.4-13).

Yes, there is more than a similarity between 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14! We are reading about the very same controversies over foods sacrificed to idols. The commands of God in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are not given a scant mention here because they were not an issue and those who propose that Paul is doing away with the food laws of God and the Seventh day Sabbath of God are deluded or else downright scoundrels distorting and wresting the truth for the purposes of deception. As Conybeare and Howson admit: "The whole of this eighth chapter is parallel to Rom., xiv" (op.cit., 397, n.4).

"The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily even unknowingly buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend. Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their new found faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8" (The Life Application Bible Commentary, 1999, on 1 Cor 8.2).

I began this 50th Lecture in this series on Romans with a quotation from Solomon on the topic of contention. I wish to conclude on it. I will do so by honouring the minister who originally stated it. Now, I admit readily enough that I have absolutely no idea who said the following quotation, because it has been used by so many internet ministries from Armstrongites right through to small-time black teachers in Nairobi! But whoever he or she happened to be, I say with a grateful heart, Thank you!

This presently unknown thoughtful and wise minister once said, "Contention divides. Much of the strife and disunity in the church is promoted by those who seem bent on 'majoring in the minors.' This is the overall subject of Romans 14. Church members were becoming 'bent out of shape' over things that irritated them but had little or nothing to do with salvation. They blew these irritants out of proportion to their real importance, creating disruption in the congregation."

Yep! Absolutely! And the fact remains that the contents of Romans 14 cannot be used by anyone to disprove the necessity of Sabbath observance, nor can it be used to treat with contempt the food laws given to us by God Almighty Himself. The folk who were marked by Paul for correction over irritations that had very little if nothing to do with salvation deserved Paul's anger. They also deserved God's anger. In so many instances, so do we.

God is love.

May She have mercy on us all.

THIS CONCLUDES LECTURE 50