Sunday School Notes: Romans 14:14-17
14 I know and I am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing in itself is unclean, except to the one who reckons something to be unclean, to that person it is unclean. 15 For if on account of food your brother is grieved, you no longer walk according to love; do not, by your food, destroy that one on behalf of whom Christ died. 16 Therefore, do not let your good by maligned. 17 for the Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Paul hasn’t said much about his own conviction with regard to the place of the Jewish food and ceremonial observances under discussion. If there was any doubt about where he stands, he makes his views clear here. He says there is nothing that is unclean in itself, and this is a conviction he has “in the Lord Jesus.” In Mark 7:14-23, Jesus made it clear that it’s not what goes into a person that defiles, but what comes out of his mouth. He goes on to list, among other things, envy, slander, and other things of which members of the Roman church appear to be guilty. Undoubtedly, Paul was aware of Jesus’ teaching on this, so it might be such passages that form the basis of his conviction. This conviction may also simply represent Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ teaching as a whole. It’s certainly consistent with what he’s been saying, and of the experience of the other Apostles (see Peter’s vision in Acts 10, for example).
The word I’ve translated “unclean” is the Greek adjective koinos, which usually means “common.” The form of the Greek language in which the New Testament was written is known as Koinê Greek–that is, the Greek that was common in the first century, and in popular use. So the word itself is not necessarily negative. However, when used in the context of the Mosaic Law, among Greek-speaking Jews, it took on the meaning of “unclean,” or non-kosher. It’s important we remember that anything non-kosher was not simply unclean, but it actually defiled. It wasn’t just that the food was unclean, but the person who ate or touched it became unclean too. This idea of clean/unclean, ritually pure/impure, derived from the Old Testament Law, was very important to the practicing Jew (as it is to modern-day observant Jews), and seen as one of the things that separated them from the rest of humanity and identified them as God’s chosen people. For Paul to say that “nothing is in itself unclean” undermines that whole concept. It’s a radical statement, and Paul’s purpose in making it is to re-establish the fact that God’s people are those that are in Christ, regardless of what they eat or drink.
Having stated his agreement with the “strong” in the Roman church, he goes on to caution them. While there is nothing that is actually unclean in the sight of God, to the person who, by virtue of conscience or tradition, still considers these things unclean, they are unclean. It can be hard to break free of deeply-ingrained beliefs, especially when they are held to by family and people you respect. If you’ve grown up your whole life believing that eating pork is a sin, it will be very hard to enjoy bacon, even if you now recognize that nothing is intrinsically unclean. Paul appeals to the “strong” believers to be sensitive and patient with these “weaker” brethren. It may not be unclean, but in their minds it is, and that’s where the “stronger” believers need to exercise love and acceptance.
The wrong approach is to grieve your brother by your attitude. We’ve already seen how Paul has had to remind the Gentile believers that the Jewish believers are still brethren in Christ, even if they struggle with letting go of the ceremonial law fulfilled in Christ. We are all judged by God, and in Christ we receive the same declaration of “not guilty.” God has, in Christ, accepted the “weak”–so should the “strong,” regardless of the food issues. There shouldn’t be any condemnation or mocking, or any sinful attitudes that only seek to tear a person down. Christ died for the “weak” brother as well as the “strong”–how dare we attempt to destroy someone for whom Christ died over something as trivial as whether or not they eat meat! Certainly such an attitude is inconsistent with walking, or living, in love (see Romans 13:8, John 15:12, and 1 John 2:9-11).
Notice that Paul doesn’t simply say such attitudes “grieve” a brother, but it may “destroy” him. This seems a very strong term, and implies something very dramatic–like undermining their faith completely, even to the point of the brother losing his salvation. Is that what Paul is saying? Since Paul has expended a lot of energy to make the point that our salvation is based in the work of Christ, and nothing we do, it would be inconsistent for him to suggest that a bad attitude could cause someone to become unsaved. If salvation comes by the grace of God, and not by words or attitudes, then surely words or attitudes are not going to cause that salvation to fail. Maybe Paul is using hyperbole here to make his point, but even if that’s true, we shouldn’t lightly dismiss the passion behind his words. Even if someone’s salvation is not in jeopardy because of the attitude of others, such bad attitudes can cause someone to lose their confidence in the love of God, in the church, and perhaps their own ministry within the church. That person’s salvation may be secure, but their effectiveness within the church can be totally undermined. Indeed, their eternal soul may be safe, but their ministry could be destroyed. And all because of food?
The freedom we have in Christ is a good thing, and I presume that’s what Paul is referring to in verse 16. Bad attitudes towards others can bring that freedom into disrepute (the Greek verb is blasphêmeô from which we get “blaspheme”–but Paul is using a more general sense of the term here: to demean, denigrate, slander, or malign). It hardly commends freedom from the Law to the Jewish believers if the Gentile attitude is so unloving and un-Christlike. By their condemnation of the Jewish believers, the Gentile believers are maligning, or bringing disrepute upon the wonderful gift of Christian liberty: freedom from the ceremonial Law, and right-standing with God by grace through Christ, not by works. It’s important for us to note Paul’s words, because we can easily sour the good news we bring with a graceless attitude. Whether we’re encouraging a brother, or sharing the gospel, we should never allow ourselves to be a stumbling block to the message of hope and forgiveness in Christ.
“For the Kingdom of God is not food and drink…” Paul doesn’t speak much of “the Kingdom of God.” For Jesus, the Kingdom of God is something he establishes, consisting of all those who follow him, all who believe and trust in him, both as a present reality, and a future hope. Echoing this, I think Paul uses the term to refer to the church, and perhaps uses the term deliberately to remind the Roman Christians that what he says is consistent with Jesus’ teaching.
In the Greek, he says that the Kingdom is not eating and drinking…” using the verbs to represent food and drink. The issue of drink hasn’t come up in the discussion, but Paul is now speaking generally, not just about the food issue. What really matters when it comes to the Kingdom of God, who is a part of that Kingdom, and how the members of the Kingdom relate to one another, has nothing to do with what we consume through our mouths (remember: “it’s not what goes into a man that defiles…”). Rather, it has to do with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.
“Righteousness” can refer to both being right before God, and being right before one another. As we know already, as Christians, we are righteous before God because we are clothed with Christ’s righteousness bought for us on the cross. This is true for everyone in the Kingdom, so righteousness before God is certainly crucial to being a part of the Kingdom of God. And this is something that can’t be earned by diet, but is the gift of God. However, there should be a desire for right-standing among brethren within the Kingdom that comes with being made right with God. If that vertical relationship is real, it will affect horizontal relationships too.
“Peace” can also refer to peace with God, and peace with one’s fellow believers. As with righteousness, peace with God is of critical importance to the Christian. Forgiveness of sin and right-standing with God means that the wrath of God is no longer set against us, and we have peace with Him. Peace with God ought to produce a desire for peace with one’s brethren in the church, leading to unity founded on mutual love and respect (not necessarily agreement on every secondary issue). Keeping the peace of the church is more important than being right over secondary issues.
“Joy” comes naturally from the Christian who is at peace with God and his fellow-believers. I think in the context, this is more than joy as a result of being saved and knowing the love of God. It’s a deep sense of comfort and security that is a gift of the Spirit to those who are saved–who know God, and are in right fellowship with others in the church.
“in the Spirit” I take with all three, not just “joy.” Righteousness, peace, and joy all come to us through the Spirit. These are not things that we can conjure up naturally. We need divine assistance, empowerment, and, indeed, rebirth in order to truly experience these things. In other words, these are Christian attributes, given by the Spirit at regeneration. It’s only by the Spirit that Christian unity is possible.
It’s interesting to note the parallel between this verse and Romans 5:1-2. There, Paul says, “Having been justified [i.e., made righteous] by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access to this grace in which we stand…” The word “grace” is not strictly a parallel, since it translates the Greek charis, and not the Greek for joy which is chara. However, I’m sure you can see the similarity between the two words.
We’ll start at verse 18 next time…
