Introduction

The literary structure of chiasm makes it difficult to outline Romans 14:13-23 since the things developed come in separate pieces (ABCCBA) with the first element unpacked at the beginning and then at the end; the things work from the ends to the middle (specifically cf. v. 13 with vs. 20-21). So I will end our message today in the middle portion of the text (with emphasis on vs. 17-18).

It is a text on Christian liberty, a form of liberty of conscience. This seems easy enough to define: the conscience is not bound with regard to matters indifferent in themselves, which are matters that are neither commanded nor prohibited in Scripture. The persons spoken of as weak and strong also seem straightforward: the weak have scruples regarding matters indifferent and the strong do not have these scruples (a scruple is like a little stone in your shoe that makes you unusually sensitive in your walk). The issues at Rome are food, Jewish days, and wine. The strong know that there is no binding obligation to the Jewish days, to vegetarianism, and to total abstinence.

But who are the weak and the strong today? Who wants to think of themselves as weak? On issues where we differ do we not all think we are the strong ones who stand for biblical righteousness? Take wine for example, some today think that it is the weak that use wine (even in moderation), that the use of wine involves human/sinful weakness.

Of course, claiming to be strong we have greater responsibility. We have two things to keep in mind. First, we face the serious danger of pride and need to be alert. We must remember that God despises the proud but gives grace to the humble. Second, if we claim to be the strong on whatever issue, this text brings us not so much a "pat on the back" as a "kick in the shin." That is, this text places the greatest emphasis on duties of the strong. In 14:1-12, duties common to both were addressed but more specifics were given to the strong. Now in 14:13-23, the entire section is addressed to the strong placing responsibility squarely on their shoulders.

Although difficult to outline, the passage does stress one particular duty, "The Stumbling Block Principle." This principle pertains to those who have liberty. The strong may not have obligation to some specifics of an indifferent nature but they do have obligation oriented around the stumbling block principle (binding duty belongs to those who are free!).

Overall we will consider two main things: the duty stated and the duty grounded.

1A. The duty stated

The duty is stated both negatively and positively. At first it seems that the whole thing is cast in a negative way but as we shall see the stumbling block principle contains both some "do nots" and some "dos" (what we are not to do and what we are to do).

1B. The duty stated negatively

Paul makes the transition to the stumbling block principle in verse 13 by playing on the word judge. The problem of judging one another is ever present and is something that we must guard against (unjust judgment, unkind appraisal, and harsh condemnation). In effect, you are to judge but now instead of that wrong kind of judging, make this right kind of judgment. Namely, make the careful and deliberate judgment "not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way."

The stumbling block is like a rock put in someone's path over which they are prone to trip and fall. The obstacle is literally a trap placed in someone's pathway to bring him harm. The idea in both analogies is that someone will fall in some way that hurts. It is to stumble so as to fall; it is to become entrapped or ensnared. Some questions will guide our thinking on this.

What is the harm caused by the stumbling block? After all we are talking here about food and drink. What is the real problem? To answer this question we need to consider the parallel phrases. This will help us see what to avoid.

Stumbling block/obstacle

• Fall/entrapment (v. 13)
• Brother is distressed (v. 15a)
• Brother is destroyed (v. 15b)
• Good is spoken evil of (v. 16)
• Work of God destroyed (v. 20a)
• Brother is caused to fall (v. 20b)
• Self-incrimination occurs (vs. 22-23a)
• Sin is committed against the conscience (v. 23b)

Therefore, you are not to cause the following in the lives of the weak: distress, destruction, evil speaking (deeper disdain being expressed toward something good in itself because of how we conduct ourselves with it such as being harsh or quarrelsome), self-incrimination, and sin.

How strong is destroy (vs. 15, 20)? This question will give perspective. Is it to bring to utter ruin in eternal destruction (as Moo thinks)? What tells against that interpretation?

1) The language of "brother" stresses the family context (vs. 13, 15). Paul is not thinking of mere profession versus possession in this context. As a matter of fact, the orbit of thought here is that what the brother does is "to the Lord" giving thanks to God (v. 6). The brother is one for whom Christ died (v. 15), which is an objective fact. The presumption is that those who we see as weak are in fact our brothers and sisters because our Elder brother gave His life for them.

2) The parallels in the paragraph reveal the ingredients of the whole "destruction pie" by comparison. The fall leads to pain, to distress (or grief), to self-condemnation in the affliction of conscience, and in one word to sin. The fall takes the brother or sister down instead of building them up; it destroys rather than builds. Such action is exactly contrary to the whole direction and flow of our elder brother's love and of our brotherly love! At the core the problem is that if we lead our brother to sin we lead him to that which is always destructive (tearing down). Of course, given free reign (as in the case of unbelievers) sin leads to eternal destruction.

The danger of sin is for both the weak and the strong. How is this so?

We who are strong are not to let our good be spoken evil of by our wrong/sinful conduct in the use of the good. Those who are weak are not to sin against their conscience and we are not to be an aid in this by how we use the good.

How do we fulfill this obstacle principle?

Keeping the negative angle in mind we can say that we avoid placing the stumbling block by not quarreling (14:1, not receiving the weak unto disputation), by not holding them in disdain (14:3, looking down our superior noses at them), by desisting (14:21, not eating, not using the liberty we have), and by not being insensitive to the consciences of others (14:21, not violating or own conscience and not promoting the violation of conscience in others is radically important). On the whole these are all ways that contribute to pressuring others to go against their conscience and that we must determine, judge firmly, not to do.

Thus in summary:

• We have liberty of conscience but not in a vacuum.
• We are not to run roughshod over the consciences of fellow believers.
• We are not to put a stumbling block in their path.

This means in general that we will always be on guard to avoid contributing in any way to the sin of others (cf. the promotion of law keeping in ourselves and in others). Here more specifically, we will do all we can to avoid causing someone to sin against their conscience (to him it is unclean; he sins if he participates, v. 23). We avoid this by sometimes desisting from what we have the right to do. We do this by not pressuring them by quarreling (v. 1) or by a superior attitude (v. 3a) that scorns and thus makes them feel small, unworthy, or ugly in our presence. These attitudes put a pressure on some people that may cause them to go against their consciences in order to find relief from this sense of unworthiness or ugliness. Proverbially, when they give in they go out of the frying pan and into the fire.

This is important because we may be wrong in our use of the good. And then if this causes someone to go against their conscience, we lead them to sin and we are doubly faulted.

2B. There is a positive side to this duty

1) It is a judgment (deliberative decision) for love and self-sacrifice (v. 13, 15a). This reminds us of the collage of Christian graces (12:9-13). It especially reminds us of the call to compounding love, to heaping up love all along the pathway of the good (12:10, "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love" which is literally: "be family love devoted to one anothering love with brotherly love").

2) It involves putting forth every effort to promote peace and mutual edification (v. 19). What began as a negative duty that may have seemed somewhat passive (decide not to place an obstacle in another's way) continues here with determined energy applied to the two positive poles of peace and edification.

Given all the misunderstandings that are so prone to surface, given our sinfulness, pride, and tendencies to isolate and alienate, it is remarkable that "every effort" is to be put forth to promote peace. This has to be the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace cited in Ephesians (4:1-3). Working for peace within the Christian family is extremely important to living a life worthy of our calling (Eph. 4:1). Do you believe God has called you out of darkness and into the light? Do you believe in sovereign grace? Is this not humbling in the deepest sense? Does it not cry out for gratitude? Does not God's call of you to salvation demand of you that you live a life that befits His call, that is worthy of it in that way? Then you are directed here to humility, gentleness, patience, endurance, love and in that context to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:2-3). Finally, this is the governing context that should control all speaking of the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) for mutual growth and up building under the Headship of Christ (Eph. 4:15-16). This is simply a larger context in Ephesians of the matters treated in Romans in narrower scope. The stumbling block principle is very positive and much broader in scope than simply the precise matters cited at Rome.

3) It includes continuing in the use of things indifferent with a clear conscience but with restraint. This restraint means that you accent the good of not exercising your liberty if that avoids placing a stumbling block in your brother's way (v. 20-21). In this way, the things indifferent are used with a clear conscience (22-23). By the contrast in verse 23, we know that approving in verse 22 includes continuing in the use of things indifferent. They are used but given up gladly if, where, and when necessary.

2A. The duty grounded

What is contributed by vs. 17-18 (in the middle of the text)? They give the basis for this stumbling block exhortation.

1) The nature of the kingdom is one basis (v. 17). We thus return again and again to what is first and foremost. We serve in a kingdom. It is the kingdom of the triune God. It is royal service. Central in our service is serving one another in brotherly love that is to be heaped up along the pathway of doing what is righteous, that promotes peace, that builds up instead of destroys, and that brings with it a flood of joy in the Holy Spirit.

2) And the benefit of serving (v. 18) is the other basis. This gives us something good and something great. Approval from others including the weak is a good thing. Approval from God is a great thing.

Conclusion

1) Emphasis is placed here on unity within the body of Christ

It is of paramount importance. It is something we should cultivate in tone, attitude, and openness welcoming others with a willingness to go with them in pursuit of the truth even if they challenge our present position. Re-examination can only lead us into better understanding of the fullness of the gospel.

There should be no "superior" attitude such as "we are reformed" with the nose high in the air.

We must not be cold-blooded. We must not engage in cold-blooded murder of all views not reformed doing so without even giving them a fair hearing. We should not frown on others giving them "that look" of disdain or disapproval. We must demonstrate inquisitiveness versus Inquisition!

None of the above means that we flirt with doctrinal departure and stand ready to quickly give up this or that reformed position. On one level this is not about the "what" we believe though it gets there. It is more, for the moment, about how we believe. The "what" is of great importance and we do not, we must not, lose that fact. But here the emphasis is on the "how" and the how is of great importance as well. This interplay between the "what" and the "how" of believing is not disjunctive; it is not an either/or. Instead it is a both/and.

2) It is of great interest to notice where Paul brings up the subject of the judgment seat (Rom. 14:10-12). He brings it up in the discussion of Christian unity (Rom. 14:1-15:12). It is to be kept in mind because it bears on the relationship between Christians in a distinct way. It is brought up here and not with regard to the law or the Ten Commandments. The judgment seat and our accounting to be given there are relevant to our relationships with others Christians. And note further that it bears on our relationships to one another at the point where we have differences. And even more precisely, the judgment seat hangs over our relationships to one another with differences of an indifferent sort.

This application of the judgment seat has to accent for us in no uncertain terms that brotherly and sisterly love must have a priority that transcends our differences, disagreements, and divergent practices.

None of this minimizes the high importance that Paul gives to truth. We are not led here into a "lowest common denominator" Christianity or what we might call a "minimalist" model of Christian confession. Such minimalism is advocated by very influential contemporary Christian philosophers some of whom have been identified as reformed (cf. Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, vii. Of reformed extract he nevertheless finds the Canons of Dort to be merely an "internecine quarrel among Calvinists" unclear as to which side is correct and concerned with matters "about which the Bible itself is at best terse and enigmatic," Philosphers Who Believe, fn. 3, p. 278; contrast this with Paul's accent on the whole counsel of God centered on grace and Peters repeat principle relative to the grace of election, Acts 20:24, 27; 2 Pet. 1:10-15 with 1 Pet.1:1-2, 9-10. On the other hand, Plantinga does encourage brotherly love between all who name the name of Christ and with that we must heartily agree and toward it we must earnestly work.).

What Paul's emphasis does do is stress the all-important fact that the family bond of brothers and sisters in Christ is of the highest, and shall we say, of paramount importance! So we must always be communicating with one another as mutual family members and not as enemies in spirit and tone. We must be open for reconsideration of the various doctrines and practices that separate us in practical terms. We must try to reach across the boundaries that separate us in every way that we can.

We must never be unreasonable or intolerant even of those who are unreasonable and intolerant. We must always be open for dialogue and reconsideration of all matters of difference since we have difficulty determining which are truly indifferent (we differ over what is indifferent and we have no inspired commentary on our precise differences as Paul gave to the Romans regarding their differences).

3) A humble outlook is critically necessary. Let me illustrate. Presuppositions are beliefs that govern other beliefs. Like colored glasses they control and tint all that we see through them. We have presuppositions regarding grace, baptism, regarding being a husband, wife, father, mother. We see ourselves as having it right regarding a host of details of belief and practice pertaining to these relationships. But what if our meat grinder, let's say one of our mini-meat grinders, is faulty? It could be faulty given that we are mask wearers when we look into the mirror. Therefore, it is imperative that we have a humble spirit in a fundamental way. It will show up in a willingness to do "in-depth re-examination" repeatedly over the course of our lives. This posture goes with the deep desire we have to live by every word of God and not by our own opinions by which we pass that word through a grid and thus misconstrue it.

This does not mean that we become skeptical and walk on eggshells at every point. We live what we know and we look to God to teach us more.

4) Serving Christ our risen Lord is first and foremost even in these matters of indifference. He is the master that we all serve. Trust Him, commit your all to Him.

This motivates and grounds the quest for wisdom in our use of liberty and in our conduct across the board. Thus we have and should use our liberty in thanksgiving to God. But we do so with full awareness of how what we do affects others in the Christian family. We seek the wisdom to promote edification and thus to work at informing the consciences of the weak without pressuring the conscience. This may involve giving up of our rights at times if we think it may lead others to sin. It is easy to give up some liberty for them in light of the fact that Christ gave up His very life for them (and us)!