Building on last week's treatment of "doubtful days and the Lord's Day," I want to concentrate on what Paul has to say in Romans 14:1-12. Our theme is "The Weak and the Strong." I will discuss difficulties, perspectives, duties, and motivations pertaining to Christians who are weak in relation to Christians who are strong.

1A. Difficulties of the weak and the strong

What are the points at issue? What is the nature of the problem? There are three points at issue (food, days, and wine) and they are treated in greater to lesser detail (the most given to food and the least to wine). The principles developed here pertain to all three.

1B. Food (eating meat versus being vegetarian, 14:2)

At Corinth there was a similar problem in which some abstained from meats offered to idols (not from all meats, not vegetarianism but abstinence from particular meats).

Neither total abstinence nor abstinence from meats offered to idols is regulated by the OT dietary laws. So we ask, "Who are the weak then if this is not a matter of OT regulation? Can they be Jewish Christians?" Some reasons for an affirmative answer to this question are: a) The reference to clean versus unclean food (v. 20) ties this issue to Jewish dietary laws as exemplified by Peter in Acts 10 (v. 15, "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean"). b) There are many examples in the Bible and in extra biblical material of Jews avoiding all meat that was not "kosher" (such as Daniel 1:8 and other accounts in the pre-Christian era, cf. Moo 830-31).

Whatever the historical background may be, there is difference of opinion as to whether or not a Christian ought to adopt a vegetarian posture. The weak argue that we must practice vegetarianism and the strong argue for the right to eat everything, meat as well as vegetables.

2B. Days

We argued last time that the days here do not refer to absolutely all days but to "all Jewish days under dispute at Rome but not specifically described by Paul."

One way to argue this is by harmonizing Romans 14:5 with Revelation 1:10. To avoid contradiction we have to take Paul and John as referring to different things. The Lord's Day is not included in the disputed days at Rome.

To summarize, it is helpful to see Revelation 1:10 as the tip of an iceberg. Think of this analogy for a moment. When you hear of the tip of an iceberg you are led in thought to the huge mass of ice that lies unseen below the surface of the water. The point here is that lying below the surface of Revelation 1:10 is the entire Bible. That is how you have to approach this final book of the NT canon. The tip of the iceberg is a great analogy to use for how Revelation 1:10 fits into the Bible as a whole regarding the sovereignty of God over history. In a book that brings redemptive revelation to a close and that directs our attention to the unfolding of history like the unraveling of a scroll, it is not surprising that this last book is intimately rooted in all previous books of Scripture. The massive iceberg that lies below the surface of Revelation 1:10 reaches all the way back to Genesis 1:1-2:3. The following observations capture some of the biblical theology that underpins Revelation 1:10 and that governs the reading of Romans 14:5.

1) Jesus has a day that belongs to Him; it is Sunday, the day of His resurrection.

2) The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mk. 2:28).

3) His Lordship of the Sabbath began in a unique sense by means of the resurrection.

4) The resurrection completed redemption and inaugurated redemptive rule.

5) Therefore, Jesus exercises His rule over the Sabbath on Sunday.

6) Consequently, the Sabbath day that belonged to Jehovah in the OT (Ex. 20:9; Isa. 58:13, "the Lord's holy day") now belongs to Jesus our risen Lord. The fourth commandment is His to give and ours to obey under His authority on His day.

7) In turn, Sunday is to be rightly viewed as the Christian Sabbath.

8) The six and one pattern for life on earth continues in a new and Christian form under obedience to Christ. He is Lord of every day. He is the Lord of the 6-1. He is Sabbath Lord.

Some days have an optional quality about them. But Sunday is not that kind of day. It is a day that belongs to the Lord Jesus. Therefore, the dispute at Rome is whether or not Christians are obligated to observe various days on the Jewish religious calendar. It does not have the Lord's Day Sabbath in view. The weak insist on keeping various Jewish days as sacred while the strong insist that all these days are common having no distinct religious significance.

3B. Wine

This is given very little treatment but it is cited (v. 21). The debate is over total abstinence. The weak argue for total abstinence and the strong argue that there is a good and proper use of wine by Christians. The abstinence view appears to be rooted in a way similar to the meats issue. There is testimony of Jewish Christians who argued for total abstinence because of "contamination" by Gentile dedication of wine at pagan altars (before resale in the market).

These things are called adiaphora or matters of indifference, that is, matters whose use is not wrong per se (in and of themselves). But the weak did not recognize this indifference. For example, they insisted on vegetarianism. Today we might classify them as people who say, "we don't drink, smoke or chew or go with the girls that do." Some contemporary parallels may be the use of wine (on a different basis), tobacco, and even something like coffee (forbidden on religious grounds).

The problem is sometimes called a problem of religious scruples. A scruple is literally a small sharp stone that causes discomfort and this discomfort controls one's actions. The weak have mental discomfort, difficulty of conscience over small stony matters of an indifferent quality. But again being indifferent means these are areas of no biblical commandment or prohibition (cf. a small stone in your shoe will cause you to limp or even hobble).

2A. Perspectives regarding the weak and the strong

1) Weak and strong are not absolute categories. It is not the case that the weak are totally weak, weak in all areas of their lives. Nor is it the case that the strong are totally strong, strong in all areas of their lives.

Weak versus strong refers to strength of conscience with regard to specific issues. One could be strong in faith regarding most matters but weak in some particular matter such as the use of wine. This is not a judgment about a person as a whole in their walk before the Lord. Thus, someone who is strong in conscience regarding the use of wine could be weak in faith regarding many issues of much greater importance in the Christian life. Because I am free to have a beer does not mean I am free to be a bear. If we look over the rim of the beer glass with pride we do so to our own folly and shame.

2) For clarity we should note that there are no areas of life that fall outside of God's commandments. As this text will demonstrate, matters where there is no direct biblical commandment (so we call them adiaphora) still come under God's commandments in principle or in an indirect way. There are no absolutely indifferent matters where you could say, "it does not matter at all in any way, shape or form what I do." All conduct must be guided by the grid of Holy Scripture, whether in broad principle or in specific commandment. Thus we can say that it is not wrong to use wine as a Christian but a Christian use of wine will be governed by God's law given in Scripture. For example, moderation is acceptable and excess is sinful.

Therefore the next point is concerned with the duties of weak and strong. The strong are correct in their view of wine; they are free to use wine but they are not free in their use of wine. Duty applies to the use of wine by Christians because that use does not exist in a vacuum separate from other principles or other persons. Being right does not eliminate duty.

3A. Duties of the weak and the strong

1B. Duties common to both (brother/sister, best motive, and full study)

1) The brother/sister duty. In verses 6-9 we are taught to view both the weak and the strong as brothers and sisters in the Lord. We must all respect this otherwise we forget who is the master of us all and what He requires of us (v. 4).

2) The best motives duty. We must be willing to grant the best motives not knowing the heart: it is "to the Lord." We may have to push ourselves a bit in this regard. It's not easy.

3) The full study duty. Both are to be fully persuaded in their own minds. This means that they are not to be mindless as is reflected in the notion that all opinions are equally good (my opinion is as good as yours and yours as good as mine; I'm okay, your okay). Learning is not something static. There is duty to develop a well-grounded outlook. Paul is not endorsing some kind of pure subjectivism where a belief is merely internal and therefore correct no matter what it is.

Instead, this has to involve critical thinking, testing, and discernment. It has to include the fact that contradictory things cannot both be true. It must include a willingness to explore and search out all issues to find the good and see if I am wrong acknowledging that I may be wrong. This is a "Pete and repeat" matter over our lives. We use the loaded phrase "let's agree to disagree" in the wrong way when we use it to avoid and abandon discussion, debate, and earnest reconsideration of issues. Of course, we must be agreeable in our disagreeing; we must demonstrate love, patience, kindness, and tolerance, along with conviction. This is an art to master for balance and wisdom. But we ought never say, "you go your way and I go my way and it is simply a waste of time to revisit and wrestle with each other on these issues." The biblical call to unity, the Christian family, open minded humility, and discipleship do not allow such a posture. The goal is maximal diligence to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and not by my own traditions and opinions. So the Christian must be always ready and willing to take another look (according to time, circumstance, and common sense).

2B. Duties distinctive to each

1) Strong

a) Accept and receive the weak without fanning the flames of dissension (v. 1). In other words, "don't embrace them in order to pounce on them." Since the strong see the matters as indifferent then they can bide their time without getting a resolution to the issue right now.

Does this yield a status quo mode where no discussion will ever occur? No, as evident in the fact that Paul identifies the correct position on each disputed point. He does more than simply say some are troubled and some are not troubled over these issues (all food is clean! v. 20). There is information that the weak need to absorb into "their own minds" (cf. v. 5).

So there is an in between posture to take. Receive the weak sincerely (as family, as good intentioned) and exercise much restraint where dissension emerges.

b) Do not regard the weak with contempt (v. 3). Do not carry the smile of disdainful contempt. There is an element of pride here, of looking down one's superior nose at those who cannot see the silliness of their ways.

2) Weak

Do not carry the frown of condemnatory judgment (3b-4). This hardly fits with being one family. This duty must be seasoned by the common duties (brothers, intentions, and study).

4A. Motivation for both the weak and strong (10-12)

Here is the strong motivation to mutual love and respect. We are all going to be judged. This is important to carefully weigh because judging others is subtly and deceptively exclusive of oneself. Hence the importance again of the telephone pole and the speck of sawdust examples of what is in our own eyes versus what is in the eyes of others.

Christ is going to judge. He is master. This is especially important to remember with regard to our relationships to other Christians, especially other Christians with whom we have differences! We shall each give an account to our Savior and loving Lord.

There is a flavor here of a threat and warning of shame in the judgment (cf. 1 Jn. 2:28-3:3; Isa. 45:22-25). But these contexts speak of the grandeur of full disclosure of the glory of God in saving us. "What will be has not yet been made known" (1 Jn. 3:2; in Romans this involves the glory that will be revealed to which our sufferings of the present are not worth comparing, Rom. 8:18). Thus the shame stands in the context of pulling for, desiring, and reaching for the glory of God and the increase of His praise. The threat, at least in part here, is that the judgment will not bring from us the reflection of the glory of God to His honor and praise that should be the case and that we want deeply from the bottom of our hearts.

Concluding remarks

1) Be tolerant of differences on matters indifferent, on matters you perceive as indifferent. There is much need here because we often face difficulty and disagreement over what is in fact indifferent. A godly tolerance will be welcoming and humble.

2) Pride can manifest itself whether we are weak or strong. This comes out if we think of the strong as looking at themselves and the weak as looking at the issues. Looking at ourselves we are prone to be proud. Can we say, "we are strong" and "we have the truth on this or that" and not be on the verge of pride? Can we look at this issue or that and say, "this is the truth and others are failing to abide by it" without verging on pride? This is a caution. It again reminds us of the strong language in Scripture on God's attitude toward the proud and on the grace that He give to those who wear humility as a garment (1 Pet. 5:5-7).

3) Re-examination (versus pride) should be proverbial for us especially when we confront something to which we find ourselves reacting. Think of the last time a sermon went where you didn't want to go or the last time someone challenged you on something and your inward reaction was negatively emotional. If something "gets your goat" or gets too close for comfort, then that very thing needs to be aired in healthy re-examination before the Lord.

4) A key motive to this end is to give credence to the commitment to Christ that is expressed and the ownership of Christ that is implied. He is your judge and their judge. Both aspects of this help us maintain tolerance, equilibrium, and a positive attitude toward those who disagree with us on this or that. A premium must be put on Christian love, respect, and unity.

But always be open to become better informed. Yes, be fully persuaded in your own mind but be such on a solid biblical basis rooted in a vigorous application of open minded humility in submission to Jesus Christ your Sabbath Lord and King.