Hello all! This is my very first post, so hopefully I’m doing this right! Recently, I have been studying Romans 14:23 and trying to gain a better understanding of the context. Most versions essentially state “whoever has doubts” should not do whatever he is uncertain is correct. Does this imply that 100% certainty is required before believers do anything? On a personal note, I struggle with intense scrupulosity and constant uncertainty. I often spend a significant amount of time researching very minor (and sometimes complicated) ethical/moral issues because I feel the need to have absolute assurance that all of my decisions are without error based on verses such as this one. Does Romans 14:23 warrant this level of scrupulosity and need for certainty, or am I incorrect in my understanding and application? I greatly appreciate any thoughts!
A brief look at Rom.14:19-23
v19 begins “therefore,” indicating Paul is about to give some kind of follow-up comment to that which came before. The two little Gk words that make up the English are the same as at v12, “so then.” v16's “therefore” (one Gk word) gives us what we might rather call a conclusion from the statement just prior. Rhetorically, the “so then” construction does something closer to a resumption of prior reasoning, it takes us to the next step. Paul presently urges his hearers to pursue two factors that together are the most stabilizing essentials for the kingdom.
Those two are peace and edification. All sorts of “things” can contribute to these factors, which is why Paul is deliberately vague or non-specific as to what contributions this person or that may make. Peace and edification are key, so what is every believer doing (in variety) to show how he appreciates these pillars of church existence? If the church is a body, peace is that state of good health and systems green, pain not flashing through and threats afar off. If you are in pain, what do you normally do? You move or treat that issue. In the church, Christ has made his peace our blessing; so as we pursue peace, our goal should be stable health of its members.
The other factor is edification, or the building up of the members. Again, returning to the body-analogy, bodies grow, they mature, we exercise them, they gain strength and endurance. Buildings (in which we live and do business) are raised from a pile of materials to completion and height. Even after that, it acquires the history of its services, and becomes a pattern or offers lessons for other buildings that copy it. The church is God's building, his temple. Christ builds his church; and we (on a much smaller scale) are building one another up. Or else, we tear each other down... No, but “encourage [comfort] one another and build each other up,” 1Ths.5:11.
So, do you do these when you have time? How vigorously should you prioritize peace and edification? Pursue such things, Paul writes. That word is translated about 70% of the time persecute. How zealous are persecutors (in our imagination)? If they aren't trying, what's the point of calling it “persecution?” The very term implies persistence and determiniation. Pursuit involves chasing. If we stop, it is only to catch our breath, and then we're off again to the races. We cannot tire (to abandoning) this pursuit. The health and stability of the others in our home (and so also our own health and stability) and of the home or kingdom or church depends on it.
********************
Paul follows that exhortation with a new imperative in v20. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” Here he repeats very nearly his command of v15, but with a variation. He speaks again here of destruction, using a similar term (slightly different) from the previous. There, the object was one of Christ's precious elect. Here, the language is different; but not so different that many do not see Paul is saying the very same thing only with a rhetorical variation. Recall that in Eph.2:10 Paul writes that “We are his [God's] workmanship.” It is most certainly true that here in Rom.14:20 the idea fits.
I propose that Paul does more than repeat the earlier thought. Many commentators note the contrast between the edification of v19 and the destruction of v20, to literally “loosen down” as when a building is demolished. So, in this view Paul seems to urge us not to undo what we and others should be doing for the good of individuals and the whole church attending the peace and upstanding of the church. Would you ruin the lasting work of God for the sake of a bite to eat?
More specific than the general work of God in forming the godliness of the church, is his more particular work forming each member or living stone of that construction. The conscience of the individual is the key to Rom.14. What is that vital component of each individual member, whence comes his motivation born out of his ideas about what is right and worthy of pursuit? Is it not the conscience? God not only built a faculty of conscience into the human psyche as he was created; when he has resumed control of one of his elect saints, turning him away from his rebellion and self-centeredness, he also plans a renovation of the conscience.
So, when anyone other than God steps in to directly or subtly assume control of that conscience, it is a horrible usurpation. It is a blasphemy of the highest order. It is taking what is God's prerogative. Furthermore, it can do nothing but interfere with and damage and harm that conscience. It does not one good thing. If you, be you a friend, a parent, a teacher, a pastor, any influence whatever—if you displace God from the seat of his work, from the conscience of any brother or sister (or even of your own self), you destroy the work of God. Least of all, let it be for the sake of something as trivial as food.
Paul goes on to say, v21, that contrarily, good (i.e. support of the divine work) would necessarily result from simply refraining eating meat or drinking wine or whatever would result in harm to your brother—whether he is actually stumbled into sin (scandalized), or is stung by what you do, if he thinks it clearly offensive to God's order, or is simply weakened. Do good, and do no harm. Be constrained not by your need to assert your rights, but by love.
********************
Finally, vv22-23 encourage both the strong believer and the weak to live by faith, which is according to conscience. "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin."
In v22, Paul addresses Joe Strong. "Be glad and thankful to God for your spiritual strength; no need to brag about it, no need to lord that strength over others, no need to compare yourself to anyone else. Hopefully, you are not false in your judgment, and end up condemned for ignorance."
In v23, Paul speaks counsel to Jim Weak. "Don't stress your conscience by trying to exercise alongside Joe. You aren't in competition with him. His conscience may be clear in something you are doubtful of, and one of you is probably more right than the other. But don't dare your God-given warning system. It is calibrated to where you are spiritually at this moment. Your mind may be changed in time by the work of the Spirit on your heart, but for now let your conscience serve you;
because not to obey it's warning is, in fact, sin (if not necessarily the behavior itself)."
As for the question:
how sure is sure? together with BenZ, I urge you to avoid paralysis, as far as you have the ability. A fearful life is not what God has in mind for his children. You have a general freedom in the Lord to live cheerfully, not worrying whether this step is in "full-faith" or not. None of us could be so positive, if that was needful. The command to act in faith assumes you are essentially capable of it. The warning is to
not act presumptuously in anything that challenges your conscience. For some people, there are more of those doubts than others, usually earlier in their Christian walk (like a child learning to step with confidence).
