previous page | table of contents | final lesson
The objective of this lesson: to increase Christian awareness of God's ability to sustain a person in Christ.
Our accepted and imagined concept of first century congregations often was [is] oversimplified. That imagined simplicity likely never existed. Often we think if today's Christian visited a Christian congregation in the 50's A.D. in any part of the Roman Empire, he or she would encounter familiar circumstances that were virtually identical. A congregation in Jerusalem would be like one in Ephesus, and both would be like all congregations in Rome.
In the past [and often in the present] Christians oversimplified this concept: "churches in the first century were identical." For example, they assume that procedures in Jewish congregations in Palestine were identical to procedures in non-Jewish congregations in the Roman world where converts came from idolatrous backgrounds. Significant differences existed. Consider the view of Christian Pharisees in Acts 15:4,5 as they rejected Paul's work among non-Jews.
That is not true. Many powerful factors worked together to produce the nature, practices, and attitudes of a first century congregation. Factor one: were the former religious experiences of converts (1) the result of generations of exposure and practice in Judaism, (2) the result of generations of exposure and practice in idolatry, (3) atheism, (4) being a non-Jew attending a Jewish synagogue, (5) being a convert to Judaism, or (6) exposures to other religious concepts?
In the first century [just as today] a person's religious experiences prior to hearing about Jesus Christ and being converted to him had significant influences on the converts' lives.
Factor two: what were the converts' economic realities? The first century world had a small middle class. Most people lived in poverty. A small group [comparatively] composed the elite [they had positions of power, or money, or both]. Were converts exclusively from lives of poverty? Were they exclusively from the elite? Were they a mixture of poor and elite? Were they Jewish by birth, culture, and background? Were they non-Jewish by birth, culture, and background? Were both heritages present among the converts?
Economic experiences/circumstances before and after conversion had a significant influence on personal views and concepts in the first century, just as they do today.
Factor three: what were the converts' cultural and geographical realities? Were they a minority, "relocated people" living among a majority? Were they in a Roman city? a Greek city? a Palestinian city? Did they live in isolation? Were they a functioning part of the general populace? Did they keep the "traditions" of the "old country" alive in their current environment, or did they assimilate into and adopt the culture and lifestyle of the area?
If a person lived in the isolation of an exclusive or withdrawn community that was committed to preserving the customs and traditions of their "homeland," that cultural isolation significantly affected the person's concepts and views. Such significantly affected the views of a congregation of those people. Isolated communities living among larger populations were not uncommon in the first century.
Other factors existed, but we should relate to these quickly. Different regions of this country do things differently. Religiously, often we are unsettled or disturbed by the differences: "That is not the way we did it where I came from." Frequently because it is different it must to be wrong. Christians rarely view contrasts as "different." They commonly view contrasts as "wrong."
Just as "differences" exist from region to region in the church in our country today, regional "differences" also existed in the first century world. Most missionaries can tell us (with examples) that regional "differences" increase in number and size as people travel across major cultural lines.
Even when we seek to combine a "blue collar" congregation and a "professional congregation" in the same city, we face major adjustments that often take years to make. In southern communities where the church is strong, the economic backgrounds of members powerfully influences internal concepts about the nature of Christian fellowship.
Christians with major background differences face major adjustments when they significantly interact with others in the same congregation. Everyone brings significant baggage from his or her past experiences/concepts into the church.
In this community, imagine trying to combine Hispanic or Laotian congregations with a typical American congregation. Imagine the challenges of placing qualified Hispanic or Laotian leaders as leaders in a typical American congregation. Even if everyone heard and spoke English well, soon cultural differences would be apparent and significant.
Even the qualities that we recognize as "leadership qualities" differ from culture to culture. Different cultures teach different thought patterns. Different thought patterns create different concepts. Different concepts produce different views/interpretations of similar situations and needs. Cross-cultural leadership is extremely difficult.
All of these insights are shared for a single reason: congregational [Christian community] realities in the first century were as disturbing, complex, and demanding as those factors are today. To dismiss the fact that those challenges were evident in first century churches is to found some of our basic concepts on a myth. The New Testament acknowledges such existed.
Do not assume first century realities were simple. They were not. It was as complex and complicated to be God's person in that age as it is in this age. For example, there was an enormous gap between the Jews in Palestine and all other peoples. In the first century the Jews of Palestine saw the world as being composed of two basic groups: Jews and people who are not Jews (gentiles).
Read Romans 14 and consider these matters. First, is it not evident that differences existed in the Christian community in Rome? We are considering a multi-congregational situation in Rome (Romans 16:16--note the words "all" and "churches").
Obviously, these Christians had significant differences among themselves. Obviously, there was more than one church [congregation] in Rome.
Second (14:1, 19), the "weak" were to be accepted and encouraged, not condemned. God made an enormous investment in the weak's salvation (14:9,10,20). The "strong" destroy God's investment when they drive the weak from Christ instead of encouraging them (14:15).
In this passage the "weak" seem to be those who were so conscientious that they were vegetarians or conscientiously observed holy days. We likely would consider such conscientious converts as spiritually strong. They visibly demonstrated in their lifestyles their personal commitment to traditions that had been honored in their families for generations. In their personal heritage, God was honored in a specific manner.
The problem centered in worship practices. Both converted Jews and converted non-Jews worshipped through sacrificial systems. Both commonly ate portions of the sacrifice as an act of honor to the deity. Thus, a common act of worship in both former religious communities was to honor a deity by eating part of the sacrifice. A common worship concept: if you ate part of a sacrifice, you honored the deity to whom the sacrifice was offered.
If you wish to read about Jewish people eating a part of their sacrifices as a continuation of their worship, read 1 Samuel 1:3-8; 3:12-17.
Both Judaism and idolatry observed holy or festival days (see Deuteronomy 16:16 for Jewish practices). Again, observance of the holy day honored the deity. What if you, your father, your grandfather, and generations in your past family observed those days? What if you felt it dishonored the Father of Jesus Christ not to observe holy days?
Both in Israel and among idol worshippers, holy or festival days were important religious occasions.
Thus some Christians ate everything in the correct conviction that food had no spiritual significance, and some ate only vegetables because they feared they unknowingly would eat sacrificial meat offered to an idol. Some Christians observed what they regarded to be appropriate holy days, and some Christians concluded there were no holy days.
The conscience of the individual convert determined his or her practices. While it was an individual decision, it had impact on the practices of a congregation.
Please note the conclusions, reasoning, and practices were exactly opposite based on religious convictions. We would approach the situation with this question: "What is right?" Paul did not approach the problem in that manner. He said both belonged to God. Both were seeking to honor God in what they did (14:5,6). Therefore they were to understand they were not to hold each other in contempt or judge those who drew opposite conclusions (14:3). They were to understand each was the Lord's servant, God was the Master of each, and God could and would make each stand (14:4). God understood the inner motive of each Christian, and He responded to the motive of the person.
Though Christians reached conflicting conclusions, God understood the motives of both. God accepted the actions of both. God made both acceptably stand before Him. Both were accepted as His children. If God accepted both, they should not reject each other.
In addition to the two things mentioned above, Paul declared: (1) faith in God is not based on personal views but on Jesus Christ (14:7-9). (2) God is the only judge (14:12). (3) The judgment will be the occasion for God's judging (14:10-12). (4) The primary, appropriate concern for servants is not to cause other servants to fall from Christ (14:13) (5) The primary issue among Christians is not, "Who is correct?" but, "What are God's purposes?" (14:14-20) (6) The priority among Christians is conscience, not correctness, because conscience acts on faith and love. Do not use your conviction to spiritually destroy one who is in Christ! (14:22, 23)
In context, the concerns were the mutual encouragement of Christians to Christians even if both groups came to different conclusions. They were to leave eternal judgment in God's hands where it belongs. They were to respect God's investment in the salvation of others by extending encouragement, not discouragement. They were to keep their focus on God's purpose--salvation. They were told, "Do not use knowledge to destroy sincere people conscientiously expressing faith in Christ."
For Thought
Discuss your understanding of these statements from Paul in Romans 14:
Core thought: do not accept other Christians for the purpose of condemning them.
Core thought: do not treat Christians who are placing faith in Christ with contempt or judgment.
Core thought: God is in charge of acceptance, not us.
Core thought: a brother is to be treated like a brother, and such treatment does not include condemnation of faith in Christ.
Core thought: a violation of conscience is one's defiance of God and rejection of what he/she considers to be godly. One's conscience is the voice of his/her faith.
Link to Student Guide
Lesson 13
previous page | table of contents | final lesson