Romans 14:1-12

 

Romans 14:1-12 (NRSV)

Do Not Judge Another

14 Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. ² Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. ³ Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. ⁴ Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

⁵ Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. ⁶ Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God.

⁷ We do not live to ourselves, and web do not die to ourselves. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. ⁹ For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. ¹¹ For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,

and every tongue shall give praise to God.” [Isaiah 45:23]

¹² So then, each of us will be accountable to God.

 

The whole of 14:1-15:13 is paranetic or moral instruction. It deals further with the life of the people of God. In Romans 14:1-23, Paul urges the people of God to show love and respect for differences in conscience, even if some are “weak” in this area. It has a modern feel in that it fits nicely into the notion that passing judgment on the behavior of fellow human beings is an act of medieval, undemocratic intolerance. Our fear of making judgments may lead us to consider that we need more judgment rather than less judgment. Paul is urging us to choose carefully the battles worth fighting.

Paul engages this matter after he has discussed what he views as the heart of the good news for humanity that God has delivered in Jesus Christ. He has shown that in the event of Jesus Christ, God has offered humanity salvation. Obviously, this means humanity needs saving, whether it knows it or not. Humanity is under the power of sin, but the love of God for us comes through Jesus Christ, who gives the opportunity to have peace with God. The people of God now live in the power or influence of the Spirit. The people of God have a new center in Jesus Christ that has opened to Jew and Gentile alike the privilege of being children of God. Everything Paul has said works out from the event of revelation in Jesus Christ. Now, however, he wants to engage some issues that endanger the unity of the Body of Christ. In a sense, after discussing the imperatives involved in identifying the Christian family, Paul is ready to remind his readers that some subjects ought to remain matters of indifference. We may treat certain opinions with seriousness, but they are not of the status that ought to bring division or even unhealthiness into the Body of Christ. In the first part of the letter, Paul has discussed matters he thinks are worth the fight. Now, he wants to discuss that which ought to encourage us to listen to how a brother or sister in Christ wrestles with certain matters and respect them for their position. Such respect does not mean less respect for oneself, who may hold a differing position. Such respect does not mean looking down upon the other from the standpoint of your superiority. It simply means mutuality of respect so that each of you finds honor and respect in the presence of the other. 

In the case of this passage, people quarrel over differing opinions regarding what foods to eat and what days to honor. In many ways, the topic of this passage is timely. We do have battles over food today. Many religions have food regulations, such as kosher in Judaism and halal in Islam, that appear to arise out of a desire to respect the life of the animal. They were attempts of form the most humane way to slaughter animals. Today, most of us are who eat meat are far removed from the actual killing of the animal, just as we are distant from the growing, nurturing, and harvesting of grain and fruit. We would prefer not to know, for example, that the delicacy foie gras is produced by thrusting a tube down the throat of a duck and force-feeding it for weeks before slaughtering it and removing its liver. [1] For some persons, a code ought to exist that forbids eating such food. 

I have a little confession to make. I had what I thought would be a brief fast of eating beef and pork. The purpose was prayer. When the desire to eat one of these meats arose, it called me to prayer. It was to last only about a week. It has turned into a much longer commitment. I will eat fish and some chicken, but I have tried to keep away from the other meats. My explanation is that these higher order animals have some level of intelligence and feeling that makes me uncomfortable in using them as a food source. I do not make a big deal out of this. In other words, if friends invite us over and they have beef or pork, I will eat. However, such meats are largely out of my diet. But it is a personal decision that appears to be a humorous one when I share it with others. 

In any case, the path of developing a code regarding food and other behavior for the people of God is a dangerous path. In the past, the battles involved smoking, drinking, cards, dance, television, and radio. When I was part of the Wesleyan Church, one branch broke off in the early part of the 20^th century over television. The Wesleyan Church in Broadview, Illinois at which was assistant pastor for a year had a pianist who was not a member of the church because she smoked. It my first experience of the practical result of the Wesleyan Church rules, and it bothered me. The same type of issue arose when some persons in the youth group after Sunday night service would go out bowling. The problem was that it happened while it was still Sunday and the bowling alley served liquor, as did the pizza place. Today, the Christian community draws a battle-line in politics so quickly. Political agendas have become the idol of our time. Christ baptizes either the Right or the Left. If we are Christians, many Christians seem to think, we will honor conservative governing principles or we will honor liberal ones, or we will honor only progressive or socialist principles. Amid such quarrelling over opinions, the voice of Paul is timely. Vegan. Carnivore. Red State. Blue State. Pro-gun. Anti-gun. Whether we vote Democrat or Republican, conservative or progressive, capitalist or socialist, we are not our own, we are the Lord's. We can all admit that as much as we need each other, we can get on the nerves of each other as well, precisely because we hold passionately to our opinions.  According to forest folklore, two porcupines huddled together one cold Canadian night to get warm.  The closer they got, however, the more their quills kept pricking one another.  Eventually, they abandoned the idea and moved apart.  Separated and exposed, both began shivering, so they quickly decided to sidle up close again.  When they did, each jabbed and irritated the other as before, causing them to part for a second time.  They went on repeatedly, with always the same result.  They needed each other, but they kept needling each other![2]  This may well be a parable of American society and a parable of the church.

In terms of broad emphasis within this chapter, the freedom Paul emphasizes in verses 1-12 will give way to the responsibility to each other in verses 13-23. Living one’s life in Christ means living with freedom and with responsibility.[3]

  ^14:1 Welcome those who are weak in faith, the person who is not mature in character and experience, who has not yet gone far enough in appropriating the meaning of being in Christ. Whether the contrast between weak and strong is from Paul or Rome is not significant. It deals with the problem of scrupulous versus the enlightened conscience.  The passage deals with Christian solidarity, its extent and its limits. Paul continues to amplify what it means to be a living sacrifice to have openness to the ongoing transformation of life and thought. Here, he refers to one’s convictions. One’s convictions, then, are the outworking of one’s faith and relationship with God.  To those who are strong and realize more the implications of this faith, Paul cautions them not to have pride in looking at this weaker brother or sister.  The strong have realized that scrupulousness over externals has nothing to do with what it means to be “in Christ.”  The weak, however, have scrupulous convictions and look down on those who do not.  Yet, in either case, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. In I Corinthians 11:17-22, Paul expresses the concern that when they get together, they are not making matters better. They are making it worse. When they gather, it gives opportunity for factions and divisions to appear. The divisions appear in the way they partake of the Lord’s Supper. Why does Paul consider those who have strong convictions morally as the “weak in faith.” Could it be that such persons have lifted their opinion above Christ? Has their opinion become their idol? Clearly, they have not fully realized what it means to be in Christ. Pastors today will often hear members of their parishes say that they wish their church could be more like the early church. The situation is that, while the content of the quarrels may differ, we are much like the early churches in terms of having people who squabble over what kind of things honor and dishonor God. In this case, Paul advises that they are not to “welcome” people simply for quarreling over opinions. They are to do all to the glory of God. As Paul wrote broadly in Chapters 1-11 of his own beliefs arising out of his missionary experience, he is writing broadly here. We are not to think that Paul is writing out of specific knowledge of an issue within the church at Rome. Rather, he is writing concerning broad principles that he will apply to specific situations he has encountered. Paul offers his first example.[4] ² Some believe in eating anything, showing sufficiently advanced spiritually to be set free from such unimportant externals, while the weak eat only vegetables.[5] Paul makes it clear that matters of food and drink and rigorously maintained schedules of discipline are actually matters of adiaphora, that is, "things indifferent" to the status of one's salvation.  They are indifferent because they are externals. When we think of the discussion in this matter, some matters are of great importance. Paul has discussed those in Chapters 1-11. Some matters are “indifferent” only in the sense that they ought not to disrupt the unity and health of the Body of Christ. If they do, it becomes a sign that we are immature and weak in faith. Apparently, the weak are those who adhere to Jewish dietary restrictions.[6] They did not eat non-kosher meat. The Jewish Thereapeutai of Egypt abstained from both meat and wine.  Non-Jewish groups also abstained as signs of their commitment of asceticism and a life of nonviolence.  Some groups of Jews and Christians did not eat meat because pagans may have previously offered it to idols. Such issues may have risen to the surface because of a recent influx of Jews into Rome. In 49AD, the emperor Claudius banished Jews from Rome. The reason was an issue over “Chrestus,” whom many scholars think refers to the battle within the Jewish community regarding Jesus Christ. By 51 AD, the government invited Jews back to Rome. This invitation may have challenged the unity of the house churches in Rome. However, of note here is that the weak are those of strongest conviction, even if that conviction has to do with the extent to which Jewish dietary rules continue within the churches. Paul discusses a similar issue in I Corinthians 10:23-11:1. He wants them to seek the good of the neighbor. He thinks that some Christians would eat whatever people sell in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. The rationale is that the earth belongs to the Lord. If a neighbor in invites them to dinner and you want to go, eat what is set before them without raising a question relating to conscience. If one partakes with thankfulness, one should not receive judgment when motivated by that thankfulness. As another example of quarrelling over opinions, Paul points to observing traditional fasting days. ³ Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. End of story. At least, it should be the end of the story. The struggles of the church, whether in the first century or in the present century, suggest the story is not over. Both groups run the risk of elevating their code to an improper place in their life. Their code provides unity for their group and a place to stand that justifies judging the opposing group. They have elevated their code above Christ. Christians need to practice the attitude of acceptance and compassion for other members of their faith community. The purpose of Christian community is not to achieve homogeneity in its moral, spiritual, or political agenda, but to accommodate all into the household of faith on equal ground. ⁴ Who are you to pass judgment on servants (οἰκέτην, only use by Paul, household servant who does menial tasks) of another? Here is a very good question for any of us to ask before we utter a word of judgment upon the opinion or behavior of another human being. All too often, those who are quick to pass judgment have their sin and darkness of which they are protective. They may keep it a secret. They may not be self-aware enough to see the pride and arrogance they exhibit. It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. As Syngman Rhee put it, “We must stand not on the judgment seat, but in the witness stand, where we witness to the saving love and work of Jesus Christ.” They are on equal ground because they are servants in the same household. Those Paul considers strong in the faith have no basis for looking down upon those he views as weak. In fact, we are not isolated in these matters. We are responsible for how we treat others. Neither group has any right to elevate itself to the seat of judgment upon the other group.

Reading this passage is a reminder that our modern food fights are nothing new. We see them today when naked protesters lie down on city streets on Styrofoam trays covered with cellophane. They are members of PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. By mimicking meat packages, they are demonstrating that all animals -- including humans -- are made of flesh, blood and bone. Their message: Meat is murder. On the other hand, you know about people who put bumper stickers on their cars with the message: "I love animals. They're delicious." Or they ask, "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Vegans versus carnivores. The battle can get bloody. The advice of Paul seems clear. "Don't vex the vegans!" insists Paul to the meat-eaters. "And don't criticize the carnivores!" he says to the vegetable-eaters.

To inject a bit of humor from Dr. Seuess, here is a well-known reflection that seems fitting. It may well be that someone who differs from us may well have a good point.

I am Sam 

 

 I am Sam 

 Sam I am 

 

 That Sam-I-am 

 That Sam-I-am! 

 I do not like 

 that Sam-I-am 

 

 Do you like 

 green eggs and ham 

 

 I do not like them, 

 Sam-I-am. 

 I do not like 

 green eggs and ham. 

 

 Would you like them 

 Here or there? 

 

 I would not like them

 here or there. 

 I would not like them

 anywhere. 

 I do not like 

 green eggs and ham. 

 I do not like them, 

 Sam-I-am 

 

 Would you like them 

 in a house? 

 Would you like them 

 with a mouse? 

 

 I do not like them 

 in a house. 

 I do not like them 

 with a mouse. 

 I do not like them 

 here or there. 

 I do not like them 

 anywhere. 

 I do not like green eggs and ham. 

 I do not like them, Sam-I-am. 

 

 

 Would you eat them 

 in a box? 

 Would you eat them 

 with a fox? 

 

 Not in a box. 

 Not with a fox. 

 Not in a house. 

 Not with a mouse. 

 I would not eat them here or there. 

 I would not eat them anywhere. 

 I would not eat green eggs and ham. 

 I do not like them, Sam-I-am. 

 

 Would you? Could you?

 in a car? 

 Eat them! Eat them! 

 Here they are. 

 

 I would not , 

 could not, 

 in a car 

 

 You may like them. 

 You will see. 

 You may like them 

 in a tree? 

 d not in a tree. 

 I would not, could not in a tree. 

 Not in a car! You let me be. 

 

 I do not like them in a box. 

 I do not like them with a fox 

 I do not like them in a house 

 I do mot like them with a mouse 

 I do not like them here or there. 

 I do not like them anywhere. 

 I do not like green eggs and ham. 

 I do not like them, Sam-I-am. 

 

 A train! A train! 

 A train! A train! 

 Could you, would you 

 on a train? 

 

 Not on a train! Not in a tree! 

 Not in a car! Sam! Let me be! 

 I would not, could not, in a box. 

 I could not, would not, with a fox. 

 I will not eat them with a mouse 

 I will not eat them in a house. 

 I will not eat them here or there. 

 I will not eat them anywhere. 

 I do not like them, Sam-I-am. 

 

 

 Say! 

 In the dark? 

 Here in the dark! 

 Would you, could you, in the dark? 

 

 I would not, could not, 

 in the dark. 

 

 Would you, could you,

 in the rain? 

 

 I would not, could not, in the rain. 

 Not in the dark. Not on a train, 

 Not in a car, Not in a tree. 

 I do not like them, Sam, you see. 

 Not in a house. Not in a box. 

 Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. 

 I will not eat them here or there. 

 I do not like them anywhere! 

 

 You do not like 

 green eggs and ham? 

 

 I do not 

 like them, 

 Sam-I-am. 

 

 Could you, would you,

 with a goat? 

 

 I would not, 

 could not. 

 with a goat! 

 

 Would you, could you,

 on a boat? 

 

 I could not, would not, on a boat. 

 I will not, will not, with a goat. 

 I will not eat them in the rain. 

 I will not eat them on a train. 

 Not in the dark! Not in a tree! 

 Not in a car! You let me be! 

 I do not like them in a box. 

 I do not like them with a fox. 

 I will not eat them in a house. 

 I do not like them with a mouse. 

 I do not like them here or there. 

 I do not like them ANYWHERE! 

 

 I do not like 

 green eggs 

 and ham! 

 

 I do not like them, 

 Sam-I-am. 

 

 You do not like them.

 SO you say. 

 Try them! Try them! 

 And you may. 

 Try them and you may I say. 

 

 Sam! 

 If you will let me be, 

 I will try them. 

 You will see. 

 

 Say! 

 I like green eggs and ham! 

 I do!! I like them, Sam-I-am! 

 And I would eat them in a boat! 

 And I would eat them with a goat... 

 And I will eat them in the rain. 

 And in the dark. And on a train. 

 And in a car. And in a tree. 

 They are so good so good you see! 

 

 So I will eat them in a box. 

 And I will eat them with a fox. 

 And I will eat them in a house. 

 And I will eat them with a mouse. 

 And I will eat them here and there. 

 Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE! 

 

 I do so like 

 green eggs and ham! 

 Thank you! 

 Thank you, 

 Sam-I-am 

 

We find Paul seeking to be the peacemaker. If we read Paul closely, that is what he often does. He renounced his former way of being so zealous for the law that he would put fellow Jews in jail, or even consent to their stoning. Instead, he kept trying to find a way toward peace.

Why not? We live in a world in which people vex each other all the time. In fact, this season of American public life amazes me with the topics over which people will divide. The division today includes the traditional political parties, but has expanded beyond that. America now has many citizens who have grown to hate those who founded it, the constitution that established the nation, the mutual respect upon which political discourse is built, the moral values that hold a free society together, and even the family that nurtures children for meaningful participation in the political and civic life of the nation. The unity shown in fighting two world wars, granting women voting privileges, and removing the legal embodiment of racism, has given way to an inability to sustain respectful dialogue with those with whom one disagrees. Liberals, conservatives. Our polarized nation is full of groups constantly judging and condemning each other.

I will take it a step further. I do not mind that people have opinions. I do not mind holding them strongly and vigorously. Do you have to demean those with whom you disagree? Do you think you need to build yourself up by demeaning the other? In fact, have you at least tried to understand those with whom you disagree?

However, our passage is not only about food. ⁵ Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. In Galatians 4:8-11, Paul puzzles how they can return to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, observing days, months, seasons, and years. Colossians 2:16-17 urges that no one pass judgment on them in questions of food and drink, or even regarding festival, new moon, or Sabbath. These are a shadow of what was to come, with the substance belong to Christ. Paul is not so much concerned with the rightness of the group as in each group recognizing that Christ is greater than either group. Paul even urges thoughtful reflection and passionate embracing such broad principles by which one chooses to live. Yet, when we think eschatologically of such matters, we may loosen the hold of opinion in terms of relations with others. We do not want our passionately held opinion to disrupt the Body of Christ. We have no desire to be the reformer who may have good intentions, but who does little more than whip up moral indignation to the point where we seek the imposition of our convictions upon others.[7] Such a path leads to arrogance, elevating oneself and one’s code above others and potentially leads to harmful and even violent acts toward those who do not accept the code. I would hope we could agree that the church should not be the religious arm of any political agenda! Paul is making light of the seriousness with which each group holds to its opinions. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. ⁶ Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks (εὐχαριστεῖ) to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks (εὐχαριστεῖ) to God. Yet, they are to live to by their convictions in a way that honors Christ and in a way that offers thanks to God. In Ephesians 5:20, Christians are to give thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ for everything. Colossians 3:17 says that everything they do is to be in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. The reason Paul can write this way is because of the Christ-centered approach he has to the matters causing quarrelling among them. 

Verses 7-12 have a hymn-like quality. Only Christ is in the role of judge, and therefore, we are accountable to Christ. ⁷ We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves. Both Jewish and Hellenistic thought abhorred the selfish mindset Paul preaches against. Self-centeredness was generally decried as an empty, futile gesture by thoughtful philosophers from both cultures. Not even death frees us from the obligation we have to Christ. The point Paul makes is that Christ has welcomed both groups. ⁸ If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. In fact, it may well be that part of the basis for judgment is that God will judge each group based on its set of standards for itself. ⁹ For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Christ's death and resurrection offer more than pat-on-the-back assurances that a life lived towards the Lord is admirable — for even in death believers are not lost, but continue to stand in the presence of the loving, redeeming, resurrected Christ. We are witnesses to the saving work of God in Christ rather than judges of the opinions of others.

Paul relativizes the antithesis of earthly life and dying by belonging to Jesus Christ. One could appeal to such a passage for the positive view of death that Paul might have had as liberation from this mortal life, which is distant from the risen Lord.[8] The resurrection of Jesus did not happen for Jesus alone, but in his capacity as Mediator and Redeemer of humanity. Participation in the reality of the new life that broke in him is even now possible for those who are linked to Christ by baptism and faith. Nor is this participation, which is part of the divine mystery of salvation in Christ and thus sacramental, destroyed through the death of believers. Hence, in their death as well as their life believers belong to Christ. [9] In I Corinthians 4:1-5 Paul stresses that they ought not to pronounce judgment before the Lord comes, for the Lord will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness. The Lord will disclose the purposes of the heart. Every individual receive commendation from God. ¹⁰ Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? As in verse 4, these are good questions that point us toward the basic principle Paul is exploring. There is no place for uncharitable human judgments. For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Through God, they will stand or fall. Yet, even persons who are the Lord’s will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. ¹¹ For it is written in Isaiah 45:23, a passage Paul interprets in a Christ-centered way, “As I live, says the Lord, (Isaiah actually has the Lord saying, “By myself I have sworn,” suggesting he identifies Paul identifies the Lord of the Old Testament with the risen Christ) every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise (ἐξομολογήσεται, also Romans 15:9 and Philippians 2:11, profess as in acknowledge openly and joyfully) to God.”  ¹² So then, each of us will be accountable to God. In fact, all humanity is under the authority and judgment of Christ. People stand or fall based upon their openness to the will of God in their lives. Paul, convinced that those who are related to Jesus Christ by faith and baptism already have assurance of participation in the new life that has broken in with the resurrection of Christ, still expected that we must appear before the judgment seat of Christ in order to receive what is due for things done in this life, whether good or bad.[10]

So how, exactly, do we live in a community of faith with those who are different from ourselves?

First, we make a conscious decision to let Jesus be the judge (14:4). We need to learn a lesson in humility. We are not the lord of another Christian. The other Christian does not serve us. Paul is disclosing the attitude behind making the types of judgment of which Paul has concern here. The point is to have enough humility to let Jesus be the judge of the conscience or convictions of another. We are too quick to make judgments. We are too quick to respond with offense when the other simply disagrees. We are too quick to make our opinions a code that places us on higher moral ground than the other. With everything becoming so political today, if you know I am Republican, you might make negative judgments about me. If you know I am a Democrat, you might make certain negative judgments. Such judgments seem to come from a need we have to demean the other person. Are we so insecure in our beliefs that we must demean the beliefs of another? Each of us stands or falls before the Lord, not before each other. We do not perfectly follow the Lord, but even in our weakness the Lord can uphold us. Our allegiance ought not to be to a tribe in our tribalistic culture, but to Christ. So, do not judge. Just. Don't.

Second, accept that God wants there to be a certain amount of diversity within the community of faith. Paul encourages this diversity when he writes that some people judge one day to be better than another is, while others do not, and the important thing is that each be at peace with his or her understanding. Neither eating nor abstaining is a superior practice for Christians, because one can do both, he says, "in honor of the Lord" (v. 6). The Christian faith can embrace a diversity of perspectives and practices, if everything brings honor to Jesus Christ. Our natural human tendency is to homogenize our surroundings and our acquaintances so that they are virtually indistinguishable from ourselves. But this is not a healthy environment for a body of Christ.

Third, says Paul, think about how your own acts of judgment will look on the Day of Judgment (14:10). Reflect on how your own acts of judging and despising will look when you receive your final judgment. As Jesus put it, do not judge, and God will not judge you, do not condemn and God will not condemn you. Rather, forgive, and God will forgive you (Luke 6:37). Jesus is telling us that we will receive exactly what we offer others in terms of judgment and condemnation. The way to prepare for the Day of Judgment is to treat others exactly as you would like to be treated on the day of divine judgment, replacing condemnation with forgiveness.

I have a suggestion. The overarching narrative of the Bible is a story of ever-increasing inclusiveness, beginning with the marriage of Boaz of Bethlehem to a Moabite woman named Ruth -- a foreigner who ends up being the great-grandmother of King David (Ruth 1-4). It continues with God's call for cultural barriers to fall and for people of all nationalities to be part of "a house of prayer for all peoples," as we read in Isaiah 56. This movement only accelerates when Jesus begins his loving and gracious ministry to tax collectors and sinners, and when Paul takes the gospel to the Gentiles. In the end, our goal is to build a community that fits the vision of the book of Revelation, in which there is 

"a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and people and languages, standing before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands" (Revelation 7:9). 

 

All tribes. All people. All languages. When we stand before that Lamb, we will not be thinking about whether we eat lamb chops. We will simply be thankful that we belong to Jesus, the Lamb of God.

---

[1] --Thomas W. Mann, "Not by word alone: Food in the Hebrew Bible," Interpretation, October 2013, 356.

[2] Laugh Again (p. 86).

[3] Sanday and Headlam discuss the principles of this chapter: 1) Scruples are indifferent; 2) not everyone has this faith; 3) each person must act in accordance with his conscience and as responsible to God; 4) since to the strong scruples are indifferent, they should not offend the weaker Christian.  

[4] Sanday and Headlam have a discussion on what sect or party is referred to in Chapter 14.  There are several theories.  First, there is the oldest one, that there was a Judaizing element along the line of the Corinthians church which was hindering the church.  The objection is that they were never vegetarians.  Second, it was a heathen ascetic sect which made their influence felt.  The objection is that the observance of days was not characteristic.  Third, a majority of the church was Ebionite Christians.  The objection is that the majority were the strong and Ebionism developed later, and it is inconceivable Paul would have deal so leniently with them.  Fourth, there was an Essene influence in the Jewish part of the church, though no actual community.  The objection is that, although more probable, it is doubtful Essene influence extended beyond Palestine.   Fifth, they present their own view.

[5] Sanday and Headlam believe Paul is speaking generally here, and is not describing two parties.  Barclay believes there are two parties.  Some say they represent Gentile and Jewish factions within the church.

[6] Sanday and Headlam comment that Paul is not speaking of Jewish rites, for he is speaking broadly.  However, Knox says that he could refer to strict observance of the Sabbath, as well as other days.

[7] Barth Romans, 509, 514, 517.

[8] Pannenberg Systematic Theology, Volume II, 269.

[9] Pannenberg Systematic Theology, Volume III, 579.

[10] Pannenberg Systematic Theology, Volume III, 567-68.