QUESTIONS ON ROMANS 14 by C. P. Bollman

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 19, 1888

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 14, No. 40.

QUESTIONS ON ROMANS 14.

By C. P. Bollman

Will you please explain what is said in Romans 14 about eating meat? What are we to understand by verses 5 and 6 of the same chapter? M.

The fourteenth chapter of Romans was evidently written for the purpose of settling questions which were causing some dispute between the Jewish and the Gentile converts in the church in Rome. These questions referred to the eating of meats and to the observance of certain days. From other scriptures, we learn that the Jewish converts were, as a rule, inclined to bind the Gentiles to the observance of their peculiar customs, and it would seem that such was the case at Rome.

Circumcision was often an occasion of controversy, but in chapters 3 and 4 of this epistle the apostle had treated briefly of that question, and so in this chapter he writes upon the only other questions which were likely to be the cause of difference between Jews and Gentiles, namely, the observance of days distinctively Jewish, and the distinction of meats. The generally accepted explanation of verse 3 is thus stated by Dr. Barnes in his notes on Romans: "The question with the Jew, doubtless, was whether it was lawful to eat meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices only a part of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshiper or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his law. Ex. 34:15."

The question of eating meats offered to idols is fully discussed by the apostle in 1 Cor. 10:20-32. In that place he lays down the general principle that it was as lawful to partake of such meat as of any other unless it was expressly pointed out to the one partaking of it as having been so offered, and unless his partaking of it would be understood as giving countenance to idol worship.

Some take an erroneous view of verse 14, and profess to see in it a justification for the use of meats naturally unwholesome, also tobacco, and even intoxicating liquors. Certainly the apostle meant no such thing; his evident meaning is that things which are healthful and fit for food might be eaten without offense, provided the person partaking of them had no scruples. "But," he adds, "to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean;" that is, if in eating, as indeed in anything else, a man violates his conscience he incurs guilt, for whether the act which he commits be in itself sinful or not, if he does it thinking that it is sin, it shows sin in his heart, and he is guilty. The same idea is contained also in verse 23: "He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." He that eats anything, or that does any other act, believing it to be sin, or without a satisfactory conviction of its lawfulness, does to all intents and purposes commit sin, for he

has it in his heart to sin, and is guilty for the intention, just as the man who tells the truth believing it to be a lie is guilty of lying, for his purpose is to deceive, and the essence of lying is in the purpose to deceive; and that is frequently done while the words spoken are themselves true.

Health is a blessing, a gift of God, and it is the duty of everyone to preserve it; and to this end everything should be conscientiously avoided that is detrimental to health, whether it be unwholesome foods, drinks, or whatever else it may be.

On verse 5 might be quoted Dr. Clarke's opinion, not because he is an authority from which there can be no appeal, but simply because he has made a concise statement of what is the evident meaning and also the generally accepted view of the text. He says:—

"Reference is here made to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, etc. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian, not having been bred up in this way (nor so taught by his Christian instructors), had no such scruples."

Clarke repudiates the idea that a "Christian is at liberty to consider any day holy or not holy, as he happens to be persuaded in his own mind," and adds, "That the Sabbath is of lasting obligation may be reasonably concluded from its institution."

The fact that Dr. Clarke assumes that Sunday is now the Sabbath does not affect in the least what he has so well stated relative to the meaning of this text; it simply shows how impossible it is to be true to the text and at the same time loyal to the counterfeit Sabbath. But it may be objected that as the apostle says "every day" he must include the Sabbath, but that such a conclusion is not necessary is evident from Ex. 16:4, where we read, concerning the manna, "And the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day," and yet in the same connection it is stated that they were not to go out and gather upon the seventh day; it is certain, therefore, that the term "every day" does not include the Sabbath.

The apostle treats of the same subject in his epistle to the Colossians (chap. 2:16, 17), where he says expressly that he refers to those things "which are [or were] a shadow of things to come."

Such texts as Rom. 14:5, 6 occasion no trouble, and are not referred to as having any bearing on the Sabbath question, except by those who seek some sort of a justification for refusing to do that which God has plainly commanded all to do, namely, to "remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." C. P. BOLLMAN.