“One person believes he may eat anything, while one who is weak eats only vegetables. One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat, and one who does not eat must not judge one who does, because God has accepted him.” (CSB – Read the chapter)

Yesterday we introduced the idea of struggles to get along in the body of Christ because of differences of opinion over non-essential matters of the faith. Well, that wasn’t exactly the language we used, but that was the issue all the same. Paul’s counsel then was that we should receive one another as we are, weaknesses and all, without getting into needless and unhelpful arguments about issues on which differences of opinion are okay to have. The freedom we have available to us in Christ is vast, and if we are going to get along well in the church, we have to learn to respect that freedom. As Paul continues into chapter 14, he gets a little more specific about the particular shape of this issue in the Roman church. Let’s take a look.

As I laid out yesterday, the major issue Paul was addressing in the church in Rome was the matter of whether or not it was okay to eat meat that was obtained through a pagan sacrifice. If the meat came by way of idolatry, some members of the church were absolutely convinced that it was not okay for believers to eat it. To do so was to participate in idolatry, something no follower of Jesus could abide.

Other members of the church, though, who had been raised around that kind of a cultural context didn’t see anything wrong with eating the meat at all. It was just meat. Where it came from really didn’t matter. If it happened to have been first offered to an idol, who cares? Idols were nothing and the gods they represented didn’t actually exist. Why get all hung up about gods who don’t exist when you didn’t participate in the ritual in the first place? It’s silly. Just enjoy the meat and move on.

So then, who was right? Which position was the more God-honoring one of the two? That’s actually not the right question to ask in this situation. When we ask the question like that, we are assuming that one position is more morally correct than the other. In this case, neither position holds that particular advantage. Both positions can be held and lived out in ways that bring honor and glory to God.

For the person who believes eating the meat is wrong, they should not eat the meat. They should not buy it. They should avoid shopping in that particular marketplace if they can help it. For them, eating the meat would represent a willful violation of their conscience. More specifically, it would involve their consciously doing something they believe God doesn’t want them to do. That would be sin for them. On the other hand, for the person who believes the meat can be eaten without issue, they are perfectly free to enjoy the meat, giving glory to God for providing it for them in the first place.

Okay, but how can both things be okay? Isn’t one really more glorifying of God than the other? Again, no. That’s the wrong question. Because this isn’t a salvation-determining issue, the better question is this: What does our freedom in Christ allow? The truth is that our freedom in Christ is vast; it covers far more ground than we realize it does. If a particular action on our part is not a willful violation of God’s righteousness and sovereignty, we are free to take it. We are free to not take it as well. The choice is ours. As long as our intent is to glorify God with our action, we are on solid ground.

What this means practically for the particular situation Paul was addressing is that the side that saw nothing wrong with eating the meat was technically in the right. That’s not the same thing as saying they were more morally correct on the matter than the vegetarians. It simply means they had a fuller understanding of the nature of the freedom available to them in Christ. The vegetarians were weaker in their faith on this particular point. Now, that doesn’t mean that the meat eaters were stronger than they were on every point. They likely had places where they unnecessarily limited their freedom because of cultural concerns. This particular issue simply wasn’t one of them.

It is with this in mind that Paul observes that “one person believes he may eat anything, while one who is weak eats only vegetables.” This is simply a description of the conflict. Both of these people were in the church figuring out how to get along. Well, because this issue didn’t determine anybody’s salvation, both were free to pursue the dictates of their conscience on the matter to the glory of God.

While they did that, however, they needed to not pass any moral judgment on the person who happened to feel the opposite way on the issue as them. The one who was enjoying a fuller experience of his freedom in Christ on the matter needed to not look down on the one who wasn’t. This was simply a faith handicap for him. It wasn’t necessarily his fault at all that he felt like this. It could be this was how he was raised, and breaking free from the guardrails forced on us by our parents and our home culture can be extraordinarily difficult. The stronger believer (on this point) didn’t need to be patronizing or belittling toward his weaker brother. He needed to love him, tolerate his different opinion, and seek to enjoy his freedom in a way that didn’t needlessly trample on the conscience of his brother. “One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat.”

In a similar vein, but from the opposite direction, the one who abstained from eating because of the present limitations of his conscience needed to not pass judgment on his brother who was willing to eat. This was a matter that was not determining anybody’s salvation. There were no teachings of Jesus that limited what a person could or couldn’t eat, and He had explicitly set aside the dietary laws of the old covenant. If there was judgment to be cast on this matter, God would handle the judging. He was to bear with his brother with patience and generosity of spirit. If this was indeed his brother in Christ, then he was acceptable to God in Christ no matter what he ate. He only needed to love and leave the rest to God. “And one who does not eat must not judge one who does, because God has accepted him.”

When we decide to approach each other in the church with the generous and patient and gracious love of Christ as our guide, we can avoid so many petty squabbles that would otherwise divide us one from another. In order to do this, we must remember that if the Scriptures (and, more specifically, the new covenant Scriptures) do not speak explicitly to a matter, our freedom in Christ allows for it. If we can do it to the glory of God, we are free indeed to do it.

If we feel a particular way about an issue, we are wisest to keep that to ourselves, deciding not to take offense at those who feel and behave differently. We need to tolerate their opinions on these disputable matters with graciousness. If a brother condemns us for exercising our own conscience, we must recognize that he is not as far along in his faith journey as we are on this particular issue and be graciously patient with his immaturity on the matter. We can try to have a conversation with him on the matter to invite him into a fuller embrace of his freedom in Christ, but if that looks to be an unwise effort because of the vigor with which he holds the position, we can simply lovingly restrain our freedom a bit around him for the sake of his conscience, enjoying whatever it is at other times and in other contexts.

When we do this, the strength of the unity of the body grows, and the church is all the better for it. This isn’t easy. It takes a lot of humility and generosity of spirit, but it will result in a church that is stronger and better equipped to face the world with a united front in Christ. That grows the kingdom and results in more disciples being made. And that’s our real goal.

Next time, we’ll take a look at Paul’s perspective-shaping conclusion on this matter, and explore what it means for us. No post tomorrow as I’ll be out of town. Enjoy your weekend, and I’ll see you on Monday.