What is the meaning of adiaphora?

It is not to the "adjudication," or settlement of disputed questions that we are to receive one another. For one who is "weak in the faith," a Christian brother, for whom Christ died, may have a conscientious difficulty in regard to the prohibitions of the Mosaic law, through ignorance of the liberty into which (not law, but) grace has now brought us. Yet true, as it is, that we have been called unto liberty, we are not to use this liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love to serve one another.

The subject of this chapter is the importance of receiving one who is "weak in the faith" (verse 1). Such an one will have defective thoughts of many things and he is not to be received in order to start arguing with him over points of difference. Such argumentations would indeed be "doubtful disputations," or the "determining of questions of reasoning," and those who are strong have to remember that the weak brother is weak not in his reasoning faculties but in his faith. What he needs therefore is some larger apprehension in faith of the whole truth of God. If this be patiently ministered to him many of these questions of reasoning will settle themselves.

The subject of the chapter is the importance of receiving one who is "weak in the faith" (verse 1). Such will have defective thoughts as to many things, and they are not to be received in order to start arguing with them over points of difference. Such argumentations would indeed be "doubtful disputations," or the "determining of questions of reasoning." Those who are strong have to remember that the "weak" brother is weak not in his reasoning faculties but in his apprehension of "the faith." What he needs therefore is some larger understanding of the whole truth of God. If this be patiently ministered to him, many of these questions will settle themselves.

Well, those that are "weak in the faith", if we look at the context of that passage, it refers to those that have a conscience which is more scrupulous, more tender than necessary. They believe that they should do, or not do, things which Christians, that have more knowledge, know that they can do. That is what those that are "weak in the faith" means. Of course, we should not be at all unwilling to receive those that are mistakenly perhaps more scrupulous in their behaviour than we are. Some might say, for example, Oh, I don't think that a Christian should have a mortgage. Others, most of them in the assembly, might say, Oh, but I think they can! why not? Well, if you can say the one that does refuse the mortgage (in view of those that think they should have a mortgage) is the "weak one", you should still receive him, but "not to doubtful disputations"... not if he starts to argue about it, and generally make a disputation in the assembly. That's quite clear but we don't get very far with that.

The tendency of the Jewish mind is towards division. This comes out plainly in Galatians 2:12. It was Peter who, under the influence of certain who came from James, "withdrew and separated himself," from the Gentiles, and not vice versa. Its tendency also is toward "judging another man's servant," Romans 14 shows this, as it also shows that the tendency of the Gentile mind is to "despise him that eats not," because of his Jewish scruples, and to hold him at arm's length; or if receiving him, to receive him only "to doubtful disputations," that is, to argue with him, as though he must be made to drop his notions and think just as one does oneself. If these tendencies, on either side, are given free play, we come under condemnation, as not acting according to the administration which we have received through Paul.

Verse 1. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." Such is the plain and positive commandment of the Lord who knows His sheep, and whose will it is to reject none who truly come to Him (John 6:37). It is the believer who is to be received, without reference to the degree or measure of his faith. With respect to this, there might be a large diversity. There are babes who have need of milk, as well as men who use strong meat (Heb. 5:12-14). The emergence of a believer's conscience from a state of legal bondage into the perfect liberty of Christ, might be, and often would be, in fact, a matter of time. But, in the meanwhile, the government of such conscience was in the hands of the Lord, who had received its owner on the ground of faith. And so it is immediately added, "not to doubtful disputations," or, according to the margin, "not to judge his doubtful thoughts."*

“Now, him that is weak in the faith receive not to (the) determining of questions of reasoning.” (New Translation.) We may make a mistake either way. We may become so narrow as to reject a brother weak in faith, or we may make our receiving a cavilling person, the determining of doubtful questions, and reasoning speculations. The Holy Ghost would have us carefully avoid both these extremes. In many things such as eating and drinking, esteeming one day holy, or all days alike — in all such matters, we are not to judge one another, but walk together in love.

We must remember, of course, the apostle is not here raising any question about doctrine. He is not speaking of the faith. We are not at liberty to believe what we like. A faith has been revealed and committed to us. If question arises as to truth or doctrine, revelation is the only appeal. But this is not what is under consideration here. It is a question of practical conduct that is occupying the apostle now. How am I to act towards a brother whose conscience, as truly before the Lord as my own, does not permit him to do the things 1 feel myself free to do? Is it my conscience that is to govern him or his own? Am I to decide his doubts for him?

191 The apostle now in Romans 14, turns to special cases of the spirit in which Christians should walk in their relationships with one another. There were those weak in faith, not living fully in the light and power of the new creation as dead with Christ to the rudiments of the world. It was weakness of faith, but Christ was loved; they were the purchase of Christ's precious blood. Christ had died for them. They were to walk in grace, receiving the weak, but not to doubtful questions which might bewilder his faith. And as to that, wherever he was weak (meats, days, etc.), as a Jew might well be, though it be weakness, the weak should not judge the strong as doing evil because his conscience did not allow him to do it, nor the strong despise the weak because he had scruples which a fuller faith would have delivered him from. It was judging another's servant. He stood or fell to his own master, and God was able to make him stand fast, weak as he was. That every one was to be fully persuaded in his own mind, not act on another's faith To Him they must look as the Lord to whom they were responsible, as Him to whom they had to live.

Necessarily, the things in which one has to yield here, therefore, are things indifferent. That is what the apostle is speaking of, of meats and drinks and days. It is supposed that on both sides the authority of the Lord is owned. One cannot be really liberal in things that are not one's own. One can give up one's own liberty where it is simply a question of that, and not only we can, but we ought. The supposition here is of religious scruple entirely, not of people without conscience, but of conscience in fact rigidly governed by that which to them, whatever be the truth of it, is the will of the Lord. If a man eats, he eats to the Lord, or if he eats not, it is still to the Lord; if he observes the day, he observes it to the Lord, or to the Lord he does not observe it. Here a question may be raised with regard to the Lord's Day. How does the principle here affect that? It would seem that it does not come into the question; just because the Lord's Day is given us not in the way of legal command, but as a privilege which must be accepted as privilege in order for the observance to be anything really acceptable to God, — not that it is supposed that a Christian could have a scruple religiously about observing the day in this case or on this ground. Religious scruples are the whole matter here and who could scruple to avail himself of the privilege of giving up a day to the Lord, a day free for him to be occupied with his own things, and in such a manner as we find Scripture before us? Question here, therefore, could scarcely be made. What the apostle has before him is, of course, as the meats and drinks show, the Jewish distinction of meats and days, which has passed away, but which, nevertheless, may have a real power over the minds of some who realize that these things were once given of God, and who do not see how He has brought us out of them. Here the principle applies which the apostle has stated elsewhere, that to those who were under the law he became as under the law, "not being myself under the law," as he carefully adds; "that I might gain those that are under the law." These are the questions, but the principle as we have said, the first principle here, is that the conscience is to be before the Lord alone; and that we are to leave every Christian free to act before God. We must not judge. The Lord will do that. "Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue confess to God." It is of the first importance that in every question of conscience this should be maintained.