Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 6
June 6, 2021
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
(123)
Thesis: Living in harmony with another person's conscience has "Love" based boundaries rooted in the desire to actually help others to become more "loving" and "believing".
Introduction: In all of our studies of this unit of thought so far, we have seen that Paul has an over-arching focus of attention: in all of our decision-making, deciding to not offend or scandalize "the brother" is of a major concern. In Paul's wording in
14:13, he makes "making judgments" a matter of particular concern. This is the particular weakness of the "diseased" brother who has a poor understanding of the grace of God; making "being critical of others" a fault in those whose grasp of grace is undeveloped. But, in his call for "making
this decision" (to not offend or scandalize the brother), he addresses the brother who has a significantly better grasp of how to respond to the grace of God. Thus, he establishes a basic principle:
every believer has the
same responsibilities whether he/she is "diseased" or healthy in his/her grasp of "The Faith". In other words, no one is given permission to violate the most basic principle of the Kingdom: "walking according to the standard of Love". The relationships of the Kingdom are
always a two-way street, meaning everyone is such a relationship has the primary responsibility to do his/her own part. In our paragraph, the brother who has a better grasp of "The Faith" is responsible to curb his tendency to look down on the one who has a flawed grasp, and the brother who has a flawed grasp is responsible to curb his tendency to "criticize and condemn" the one who acts out his "freedoms" that "The Faith" affords to him.
In the study for this evening, we are going to see that Paul is focused primarily upon the brother who has a better grasp of "The Faith". To him he says, "Stop creating situations in which "your good" is "blasphemed". We are going to attempt to understand what he means.
- I. Our First Consideration: The Tense Of The Imperative.
- A. According to Robertson, when an imperative is given in the present tense, there is an underlying assumption that the issue to which the imperative is addressed is already an on-going issue.
- B. Robertson's contention indicates that Paul was aware that some of the Roman believers were setting the stage for "their good" to be "evil spoken of", and that he wanted them to discontinue the behavior that was setting that stage.
- II. Our Second Consideration: The Problematic Behavior.
- A. Setting the stage for "blasphemy" of "their good".
- 1. Critical to this exhortation is the actual meaning of "speaking of something as evil", mostly translated "blaspheme" (in the NASB the word "blaspheme" is used to translate the verb in question in 17 of 34 texts and the alternative translation choices use ten different English words or phrases in the remaining 17 texts).
- 2. Paul used this verb in three texts in Romans with the prior two being fairly revealing as to what he meant.
- a. The first of the prior two is found in 2:24 in a context where Paul accuses the Jews of so distorting their "doctrine" by their "behavior" that non-Jews actually decided that the "God" of the Jews was the root problem.
- 1) In this text/context, the actual problem is a major, visible, hypocrisy that is so apparent that the "watchers" became convinced that the problem was not so much in the Jews as it was a characteristic of the "God of the Jews".
- 2) The particular issue is that the Jews made a grand boast of having the mind of The God in their possession by means of The Law, but turned right around and broke that "Law" in a myriad of ways.
- 3) The developing problem was that the ignorant non-Jews made an error in judgment that is widespread within "humanity": they decided to reject The God because of the faults of The People of The God.
- a) This is a very common problem among men: blaming God for the actions of His "special people" by assuming that God treated His People in ways that allowed them to break His Law with a certain amount of impunity while holding all others to a more rigid standard.
- b) This boils down to the problem of demanding that others do what those making the demand(s) do not hold themselves accountable to do.
- c) If the People of The God can get away with violating one of their most precious possessions (the knowledge of the mind of God), it is God's fault; thus, He must be just like them: thus, the "blasphemy".
- d) The bottom line, then, is that "blasphemy" is an attack upon the "character of the one being blasphemed"; it is a rejection of the "glory" of the one being blasphemed.
- b. The second text/context in Romans is 3:8 where the issues are even more stark.
- 1) In this text/context, Paul is "blasphemed" because his opponents are accusing him of distorting the glory of God by saying that He "favors" sin because it "glorifies" Him.
- 2) But, as in 2:24, the bottom line is that men are rejecting God because of their misunderstanding of the messenger of The God.
- a) Paul did teach that God is "glorified" by the sins of men in a contrastive way.
- b) But he did not teach that God's people should, therefore, not be plagued by their sins: it is ok to sin because God is glorified by those sins.
- 3) That God is glorified by the sins of men is indisputable (how else can the attributes of God that only become visible in a "sin" situation be made known?), but that God is at fault for this is unreasonable.
- a) God can produce the "good" that "may come" out of man's sins because He is more wise than men as well as more loving and powerful.
- i. Romans 8:28 is one of the most precious of the promises of God and it clearly says that God can produce "good" out of the "evil" actions of men.
- ii. Both Genesis 50:20 and Philippians 1:12-14 directly state how this has happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future.
- iii. But none of these biblical statements argue that men should, therefore, not be concerned by their sins.
- b) God could, just as easily, have brought about the good identified in the texts by "sinless" means (consider Jacob's obtaining of the birthright and the blessing as a case study of this reality).
- 3. Paul's use of this verb in the final text (14:16) is in alignment with the prior two.
- a. At issue is "their good" being falsely characterized and, thus, blasphemed.
- 1) Their "good" in this context is the freedom they have to ignore dietary restraints and memorial day constraints as a way to "glorify God" (He is the God Who provides the "freedom" involved).
- 2) But, the often overlooked issue in the context is Paul's announcement that a misuse of "freedom" is a violation of the requirement that God's people "walk in Love".
- b. What Paul is saying is that the pursuit of "freedom" at the expense of "Love" is the same hypocrisy that was apparent in the Jews in 2:24 (it is the same contradiction between what a person possess and how he acts).
- B. Ignoring the prioritization of The Love of The God where "the good of another" is more important than one's "freedom" rooted in the technical truths that produce that freedom.
- III. Our Third Consideration: Reestablishing The Priorities Of The Truth Of The God.
- A. Stop exalting "freedom" over "Love".
- B. Begin exalting "your brother's true need(s)" over your own by letting God take care of you while you take care of your brother.
