# Romans 14; the weak, the strong, and ... Christmas



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 26, 2006)

Christian Liberty 13: The Ethics of Fear (ROM 14:1-4) by Dr. Richard Bacon
*Services for November 26, 2006
AM Christian Liberty 13: The Ethics of Fear (Rom 14:1-4)

 An extract; the weak, the strong and … Christmas.*
[I transcribed this hurriedly tonight so pardon any paraphrases and any typos; the below runs between minute marker 30 and 40; sorry about the flow; somethings are better audibly and not so good in print.]


The second duty is that of the weak. And the duty of the weak is (Romans 14:3): _Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth…. _Understand the word _judge_ here is the same word that is elsewhere translated by the word _condemn_. ‘Let him not condemn his brother.’ Because he is judging based upon obsolete criteria. The judgment that he is making is not based on current information but is based on obsolete information.

So you’re driving down the highway creeping along at 20 miles per hour and the speed limit is posted 60, and the policeman pulls you over because he wants to know why you’re going so slow on the Interstate. You say, when I was driving by that school back there I saw very clearly a sign posted that said: Speed Limit 20 Miles Per Hour. I’m following that particular sign.

Once you’re out of the school zone, that sign is obsolete. That sign no longer applies. So here we are now in the 60 mile per hour age and there were some people in the church at Rome who were still going 20 miles per hour. They say, wait a minute, I saw a sign back there, and that sign said very clearly 20 miles per hour. That’s right. God did say in Leviticus 18, Leviticus 6 and other places in the book of Leviticus, there are certain people you can’t marry, there are certain foods you can’t eat and there are certain days you have to keep. He did say that; unquestionably that was from God. So we can’t think of those things as in any way unjust. If God said it, they’re not unjust are they? But they’re obsolete; they are expired. The dietary laws, the clothing laws, the festival laws of the Old Testament have now passed away; they’re obsolete.

So you have this fellow driving in his jalopy at 20 miles per hour, and according to Paul, he is not supposed to judge those people who are whizzing by at 60. If they are in a 60/hour zone and people are whizzing by his car at 60/hr he is not to judge them by some obsolete sign he saw back there in the school zone. And that was going on, apparently, by the weaker brother.

So the weaker brother is supposed to understand by way of love, by way of treating that brother lawfully in accordance with the moral law, that he is not to judge the brother who is going according to the new speed limit. You see, the weaker brother is still a slave of fear. ‘If I get to going 60 miles per hour my car might run out of control.’ God told me back there 20 per hour is the safe speed. If I get to going 60 I might run out of control. He’s a slave to fear. 
[The problem is ] he’s going to go one step farther than that. Here’s the sin: when he says “and anybody else who goes more than 20 miles per hour, their car is going to fall apart on them too!” And that is just wicked. It is as wicked as the intellectual pride; the fear of the person going 20 and the intellectual pride of the person going 60 who despises the person going 20 in the slow lane; they are both sins. Why? Because they don’t arise from love to our brothers. 
…
[The Roman church used to say]: every Friday if you eat meat on that day, just plan on some hell fire. Or you can leave the meat alone and that will help your soul a lot. Does that sound like Romans 14? It was men making up rules and binding the consciences of other men with things that God had never said. 
[Example of Lent; not transcribed]
There’s another [day] coming up in a few weeks; totally manmade. Now, it’s the end of the year. If you get a bonus and you want to give presents to your family, be my guest. I’m all for loving one another and giving one another presents and so forth but listen; the very moment you say ‘a good Christian probably keeps that day; a good Christian understands it is important that we acknowledge the incarnation of Jesus Christ. And if you don’t keep that day there is something really wrong with your supposed Christianity.’ You know what; you’re in a 20 mile an hour car cursing the people that are going by you at 60. 
Now if you want to give presents to your family, go right ahead. If you want to get together and sing and tell each other how much you love one another; again, that’s fine. But we need to be careful (the passage gets to the keeping of days and we will get to that; but not this morning); don’t you dare say that if a person doesn’t keep that day there is something wrong with his Christianity. That makes you a weak brother.

By the same token, you strong brothers who realize God doesn’t care if we keep that day or not, don’t you go despising those who do keep the day… if they keep it to themselves. Again, I don’t mind you keeping it, just keep it to yourself. Don’t bring it in here [the church], don’t bring it to my house, but when I come to your house I’m not going to judge you for it; I’m not going to condemn you for it, and I’m not going to despise you for it.
That’s my Christmas message; in case some of you missed it; that’s what that was.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 24, 2006)




----------



## Richard King (Dec 24, 2006)

I like that. Thank you for going to the trouble to transcribe that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 24, 2006)

Don't know how I missed that. Good stuff Chris.


----------



## MW (Dec 25, 2006)

The imposers of the Popish ceremonies in the CofE and CofS argued the lawfulness of them from Rom. 14. If memory serves me correctly, both Calderwood and Gillespie maintained that the text relates to things that God had commanded, and which the conscience could not let go of, having a divine warrant for. I doubt if the weak brother teaching can be applied to ceremonies of man's invention.  A merry December 25 to all!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 23, 2007)

David Silversides, _Why No Christmas or Easter?_:



> (b) The Home
> 
> It hardly need be said that no Christian parent should convey the Santa Claus lie to his children, but what of the less obviously ungodly social customs? That which is offensive to God in his worship is no cause for celebration in the home. Why should a Christian acknowledge in his home an anti-Christian festival? Would the Lord have approved domestic acknowledgement of the feasts of Baal in Israel provided there were no outward acts of worship? The social customs cannot be divorced from the anti-Christian festival which is the very cause of their existence, however convenient we may find the idea. Romans 14/5 does not apply here since this refers to days once appointed by God in the Old Testament but done away with in the New but the observance of which was tolerated during the transition period from Old to New. The church calendar has never had Divine approval.



Richard Mayo:



> Rom 14:5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike: there were differences in the church of Rome about the observation of days, as well as the choice of meats; and in this he endeavours an accommodation as well as in the other. The converted Jew was of opinion, that the festival days appointed in Moses' law, were holier than other days, and that they should still be observed: see Gal 4:10; Col 2:16. On the other side, the believing Gentile was of opinion, that the difference in days under the Old Testament was now ceased, and he (the text says) esteemed or approved of all days. The word alike is not in the original, but it is aptly supplied by our translators.



John Evans:



> (2.) Concerning days, Rom 14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another—kept up a respect to the times of the passover, Pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal 4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.
> ...
> He that regards the day—that makes conscience of the observance of the Jewish fasts and festivals, not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing to be as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labours, and worshipping God on those days—it is well. We have reason to think, because in other things he conducts himself like a good Christian, that in this also his eye is single, and that he regardeth it unto the Lord; and God will accept of his honest intention, though he be under a mistake about the observance of days; for the sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head: so good a master do we serve. On the other hand, he that regards not the day—that does not make a difference between one day and another, does not call one day holy and another profane, one day lucky and another unlucky, but esteems every day alike—he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother. If he be a good Christian, he does not, he dares not, do it from such a principle; and therefore we charitably conclude that to the Lord he does not regard it. he makes no such difference of days only because he knows God hath made none; and therefore intends his honour in endeavouring to dedicate ever day to him.


----------

