Romans 14

Romans 14: by Romans

Tonight, we are going to be reviewing and examining the Fourteenth Chapter of the Book of Romans.
This epistle was written by Paul to prepare the believers there for the visit he hoped to be able to make on his way to Spain. It is not clear who brought the Gospel to Rome. Some, primarily the Catholic Church, claims that Peter had brought the Gospel to Rome, and had established the Church's capital there, but even a light skimming of the facts dispels this claim. First, Rome was not only primarily a Gentile city, it was capital of the Roman Empire. And who was Peter ordained to preach to? Jews or Greeks? We read in Galatians 2:9: “And when James, Cephas, (Peter) and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” The Jews are referred to , here, as “the circumcision.” Peter, in fulfilling his personal Mission would not have gone to Rome. For an undisclosed period of time, as we'll see in a minute, there were no Jews there for Peter to preach to. Second, when Paul finally did get to Rome, in order to stand trial before Caesar, Jews were there with whom Paul had met, but notice this fascinating conversation between Paul and the Jewish leaders at Rome: We read, Paul speaking first, beginning in Acts 28:20: “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.”

They certainly seem to be completely unaware of any positive things regarding Christianity. If Peter, the Apostle to the circumcision had been to Rome, would those same Jews to whom Paul was now  speaking have been so in the dark about the Gospel? No. And lastly, Romans 16 is basically a shopping list of all the people living in Rome whom Paul wanted to greet. Peter is not named among them.

I think it important, as we read this chapter, to lay a basic groundwork regarding who Paul was writing to: it is not as obvious as we might think. Yes, they were converts to Christianity living in Rome. But we also need to understand their collective backgrounds.

As I heard in a Sermon many years ago, that the Congregation that made up the Church at Rome, to whom this epistle was written, embodied a clash of cultures, worldviews, experiences and biases, primarily because it was a Congregation that was made up of Jews and Gentiles. The Jews had just recently returned from an exile from the city imposed on them by the Emperor Claudius. That exile is recorded in Acts 18:1: “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them...”

But now, when this epistle was written, the Jews were back in town, and were both living and worshiping in Rome among Gentiles who apparently had a system of worship in place, and had been operating without Jewish influence, or input. And, as you would imagine, there were problems arising as each side was suddenly confronted with alternate styles of worship and alternate understandings of what was pleasing and/or required by God.


Robert Boyd writes the following in “The World Bible Handbook;” The immediate occasion stems from Paul's knowledge that the Jews were not willing to allow the Gentile believers to claim equal privileges with them. The argumentation part of this epistle brings both under sin, short of God's Glory., and then by showing that Abraham's own justification was antecedent... “(coming before the giving of) “... the law, and independent of it, proved that any who were justified were justified by faith, and that all justified believers were in equal rank in God's favor, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul hoped to reconcile the Jewish converts to the truth that Gentile converts were accepted by God, and it was done without their being obliged to keep the Law of Moses.”

Having laid this groundwork, and before we begin a Verse-by-Verse Review of this Chapter, let's read and consider what Matthew Henry has to say about the first six Verses of this chapter. He offers a very interesting and important insight into Paul's handling of the colliding cultures that threatened to divide and weaken the Congregation at Rome.  

* The Jewish converts cautioned against judging, and Gentile believers against despising one the other. (1-13) And the Gentiles exhorted to take heed of giving offence in their use of indifferent things. (14-23)

“1-6 Differences of opinion prevailed even among the immediate followers of Christ and their disciples. Nor did St. Paul attempt to end them. Compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to outward observances without being convinced, would be hypocritical and of no avail. Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians would be useless. Let not Christian fellowship be disturbed with strifes of words. It will be good for us to ask ourselves, when tempted to disdain and blame our brethren; Has not God owned them? and if he has, dare I disown them? Let not the Christian who uses his liberty, despise his weak brother as ignorant and superstitious. Let not the scrupulous believer find fault with his brother, for God accepted him, without regarding the distinctions of meats. We usurp the place of God, when we take upon us thus to judge the thoughts and intentions of others, which are out of our view. The case as to the observance of days was much the same. Those who knew that all these things were done away by Christ's coming, took no notice of the festivals of the Jews. But it is not enough that our consciences consent to what we do; it is necessary that it be certified from the word of God. Take heed of acting against a doubting conscience. We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens them.”

Moved by what had to be the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, Paul did not take the side of either the Jew or the Greek. Clearly, to do so would have absolutely been a defining wedge that that would have divided the Roman Congregation into a Jewish and a Gentile faction. There were still, for each believer from varying backgrounds, entire spheres of experience, worship, and even right and wrong that was a part of their very being that could not simply have been, and should not have been overlooked or dismissed. As Matthew Henry wrote, “Attempts for producing absolute oneness of mind among Christians would be useless.”

Now, I need to add that we are to strive for oneness of mind. Paul is not saying that we shouldn't. But that oneness of mind needs to be in regard to absolute and fixed truth. Let me give you two examples:
First is in regard to the claimed necessity that circumcision was required for Salvation. Paul, here, took a clear stand and took a clear side against such a claim. He wrote in Galatians 5:6: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” And then we read, regarding the resurrection. There was a variety of heresies that had crept into the Church at Corinth that Paul had to dispel. Unlike his epistle to the Romans in dealing with the divisions there, and taking no sides, we read, beginning in 1 Corinthians 15:12: “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.”

So there is a time when a line has to be drawn, when some divisive issues have to be identified and renounced. And there are other times when the division itself, and not the issues that cause the division has to be identified and renounced.

So let's go back to the beginning on Romans 14 now and look at this Chapter with this deeper understanding of the background.

Romans 14:1  “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2  For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3  Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.”

What is weak faith? According to the Notes in The Life Application Bible, “Paul is speaking about immature faith. Faith that has not yet developed the muscle it needs to stand against external pressures. For example, if a person who once worshiped idols became a Christian, he might understand perfectly well that Christ saved faith, and that idols have no real power. Still, because of his past associations, he might be badly shaken if he knowingly ate meat that had been used in idol worship, as part of a heathen ritual. If a person who once worshiped God on the required Jewish holy days became a Christian, he might well know that Christ saved him through faith, not through the keeping of the law. Still, when the feast days came, he might feel empty and unfaithful if he didn't dedicate them to God.”

I really appreciate how they have broken this down to cover potentially weak Church members from both camps. And I love their summary statement, here: “Paul responds to both weak brothers in love. Both are acting according to their consciences, but their honest scruples do not need to be made into rules for the Church. Certainly some issues are central to the faith, and are worth fighting for – but many are based on individual differences, and should not be legislated. Our principle should be, 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love.'”

We should also notice that this is not about a disagreement about an established doctrine like circumcision or the resurrection. This is about someone who Paul describes as being “weak in the faith.” There were some who, either knowingly or accidentally eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols, adopted a vegetarian lifestyle. And this they did in the sincerity of their hearts, so that they could eat with a clear conscience. We need to jump to Verse 23 in order to establish a very important Scriptural principal: “  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

There are many different priorities, practices and tolerances, restrictions and understandings among Christians. And many of these do not have either an “etched in stone” Scriptural basis, or a Salvation-impacting effect. They are, in many cases, based on a variety of things: the familiarity of the individual with the Word of God, the spiritual maturity of the individuality, the culture of the individual, the personal experience of the individual,  the conscience of the individual. They are so wide in their potential occurrence, Paul could never have named all of them in this Chapter, and the ones that he did not name would serve as occasion for a potentially new wedge to divide the Church. So, instead, he was inspired to paint all such divisions that were based on harmless voluntary or involuntary preference with the same brush, and the same color of paint. And he went on to admonish the original readers of his epistles who were living in Rome some 2,000 years ago, or each of us today, to apply his resolution.
Let me read these first 3 Verses again, but this time from the JB Phillips Paraphrase: “Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples. One man believes that he may eat anything, another man, without this strong conviction, is a vegetarian. The meat-eater should not despise the vegetarian, nor should the vegetarian condemn the meat-eater – they should reflect that God has accepted them both.”

This concept is one of the most important concepts that can be grasped among Christians: namely, the mutual acceptation by God of a believer, or a Congregation, whose understanding and practices are not identical to that of their own, or that of the Church they attend. Again, I need to stress that I am not talking about areas of sin, or areas of apostate heresy, occult practices, or pagan worship that may have crept into their worship. I am talking exclusively about a worship practice that, while it does not conform to my experience or practice, it does not violate the Word of God.  

Let me give you the best example I can think of, regarding an experience that I had. I had just begun to fellowship with a Church here in the city where I live. And one of their members was in the hospital, and was in pretty bad shape. I don't remember exactly what had put the man in the hospital but his condition was serious. The minister asked the Congregation to join him in prayer for this member.
But then he did something that is not Scriptural. I never saw it or heard of it being done before either in person, on TV or in writing.

There IS the precedent given in Scripture to anoint the sick, and pray for their healing. But in this case, the member who was sick was not present to be anointed; He was in the hospital. So the minister called to the front of the Church, the sick man's best friend... and he anointed him, and then led the Congregation in prayer for the man's healing.

Even though this was completely new to me, and even though I knew this practice had no Scriptural precedent or example, I thought it was an absolutely beautiful, sincere and powerful appeal to God for healing. To anoint the best friend of a sick man, and pray for his healing employing the emotion and closeness of the man anointed, to the man being prayed for. I loved it. I absolutely loved it.  

There are some who would have completely missed the beauty of that experience  and would have dismissed it as man-made and therefore fruitless, or condemned it as heretical because it had no Scriptural precedence. But I was also aware that there certainly was no Scriptural prohibition of such a practice, and I had nothing on which I could base any condemnation of it.

It was nothing more than a spiritual shepherd praying with his flock, for one of the sheep who was sick.

Let's continue in Verse 4:
4  “Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.”

The final phrase of this Verse says it all: “God is able to make him stand.” By what right do we judge and condemn or nullify their sincere worship?

Verse 5:
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”

This, almost assuredly has to be a reference to the Jewish believers' continuing to apply the Fourth Commandment to “Remember To Keep Holy The Sabbath Day,” or the Seventh Day of The Week. Paul does not use the word Sabbath, here, and so some may argue that he was not talking about the Seventh Day Sabbath. There are a number of Congregations, with total memberships numbering into the millions of members, who observe the Seventh Day Sabbath as the Christian Day of Worship. I am sure they would be some of the first people to point out that Paul did not name or identify the Sabbath as the Day in question.

But I would also like to point this out. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. If the Seventh Day Sabbath as enforced in the Old Covenant, was to be observed, as one of the Ten Commandments, don't you think that every last one of his epistles, written primarily to Gentiles who had no past experience with keeping the Sabbath, would have mentioned or reminded them or admonished them to observe that Day? Yet, I invite you to check any concordance. The word Sabbath does not appear in even one of Paul's epistles. How could that possibly be true if Christians were supposed to observe it?

Paul wrote instructions to both slave-owners, and slaves. But where are his instructions to Christian masters to allow their Christian slaves to do no labor on the Seventh Day. The actual wording of the Fourth Commandment specifically states in Deuteronomy 5:14: “But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant...” Paul is absolutely silent about perpetuating the strict ban regarding working on the Sabbath. And that silence shows that it cannot have continued to be in effect, as it was observed under the Old Covenant.  And, so Paul simply writes to a group, some of whom continued to observe it as they had all their lives, and others who had never observed it, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.”

In the next section, Paul addresses things eaten. Besides the notion of meat being sacrificed to idols, there was he other issue regarding the unclean meats that were forbidden in the Book of Leviticus which the Jewish believers had never eaten, and the Gentile believers never hesitated to eat. Some of the same groups, The Seventh Day Adventists for one, that observe the Seventh Day Sabbath, also continue to abide by, and not consume what are regarded as “unclean meats.”

Paul wrote: “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
9  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10  But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13  Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.”

The Life Application Bible offers these comments in its margin regarding this: “Each person is accountable to Christ, not to others. While the Church must be uncompromising in its stand against activities especially forbidden by Scripture, (adultery, homosexuality, murder, theft) it should not create additional rules and regulations, and give them equal standing with God's law. Many times, Christians base their moral judgments on opinion, personal dislikes, or cultural bias rather than on the Word of God. When they do this, they show that their own faith is weak. They do not think God is powerful enough to guide his children. When we stand before God's court of justice, (“judgment seat”), we won't be worried about what our Christian neighbor has done.”

And then we the margin directs us to 2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”

In regard to our putting a stumblingblock in our brother's way, this is an important point to consider. The Commentary on Romans and Galatians by Douglas Moo, Ralph Martin and Julie Wu, says: “The Greek word here is 'skandalon' which originally denoted a 'trap.' But the word also became a metaphor for the idea of 'occasion of misfortune, ' or 'cause of ruin.' All fourteen occurrences of this word have this significance.”

Certainly when we think of our relationships with fellow believers, we should never behave in such a manner toward them that would become for them a “trap” or “cause of ruin.”

Jesus had very strong words about this in Matthew 18:6: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The comment in the Life Application Bible reads as  follows: “Both strong and weak Christians can cause their brother to stumble. The strong but insensitive Christian may flaunt his freedom and intentionally others' consciences. The scrupulous but weak Christian tries to fence others in with petty rules and regulations, thus causing dissension. Paul wants his readers to be both strong in the faith, and sensitive to others' needs. Because we are all strong in some areas and weak in others, we need constantly to monitor the effect of our behavior on others.”

Paul continues on the thought of what we eat as opposed to what a brother or sister eats in Verse 14:
“I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

What does that mean?

For a Jewish believer to consume pork, or shellfish, after living their entire life regarding the meat  from those animals as being unclean, it would be difficult, if not next to impossible, for such a person to sit down and enjoy a ham on rye. But a Gentile, with no such personal experience or understanding, it would be wrong to eat a ham on rye in the presence of a Jewish believer, if that offended him.

Notice Paul's words about that beginning in Verse 15: “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16  Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17  For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”

When he says, “For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness,” he is saying that this is not a dividing point. The person that eats the ham on rye, gives God thanks for it and eats it in appreciation. And the one who regards it as unclean, refrains to eat it, but also, in the process accomplishes a far greater achievement: he refuses to violate his conscience. He refuses to cross a line to a place in which he believes is outside the will of God. And for that he is to be commended because put into practice, that is a habit that every Christian should strive to adopt and put into practice.

Matthew Henry has this to say: “Though some are weak, and others are strong, yet all must agree not to live to themselves. No one who has given up his name to Christ, is allowedly a self-seeker; that is against true Christianity. The business of our lives is not to please ourselves, but to please God. That is true Christianity, which makes Christ all in all. Though Christians are of different strength, capacities, and practices in lesser things, yet they are all the Lord's; all are looking and serving, and approving themselves to Christ. He is Lord of those that are living, to rule them; of those that are dead, to revive them, and raise them up. Christians should not judge or despise one another, because both the one and the other must shortly give an account. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day, would silence rash judgings. Let every man search his own heart and life; he that is strict in judging and humbling himself, will not be apt to judge and despise his brother. We must take heed of saying or doing things which may cause others to stumble or to fall. The one signifies a lesser, the other a greater degree of offence; that which may be an occasion of grief or of guilt to our brother.”

Paul continues in Verse 18: “For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20  For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.”

Next we come to an issue that is another potential point of division within the Church, and among fellow-believers, namely the drinking of wine. I know, and recognize as Christians, people who both do drink wine, and others who abstain from wine. Paul has a word for both camps in the next Verse:

21: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

And then Paul makes what is to me, the most profound statement of this entire Chapter. If it were understood and applied by all the millions of sincere people who truly want to serve God, I think it would have the potential result of re-uniting an untold number of Congregations who have split off from each other over one of these inconsequential, personal preference worship issues:

Paul writes in Verse 22: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.”

The JB Phillips paraphrase says it like this: “Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God...”

And I especially like the Living Bible's paraphrase: “You may know that there is nothing wrong with what you do, even from God's point of view, but keep it to yourself: don't flaunt your faith in front of others who might be hurt by it.”

The KJV continues, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.”

Again, I will allow the Living Bible Paraphrase to shed light on this thought: “In this situation, happy is the man who does not sin by doing what he knows is right.”

And then, Paul sums up the whole topic with this last Verse which is also of major importance for both the critic of someone else's worship, and the believer who received the criticism.

23  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

If Christian A were to criticize Christian B for adhering to the Levitical Kosher Diet, and brow beats him into taking a bite of that ham on rye
, if he does so in a manner that violates his conscience, that is sin, as Paul says,  “because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

The Living Bible Paraphrase explains that “He sins if he does, for he thinks it is wrong. Anything that is done apart from what he feels is right, is sin.”

The JB Phillips Paraphrase says, “... if a man eats meat with an uneasy conscience, you may be sure he is wrong to do so. For his action does not spring from his faith, and when we act apart from our faith, we sin.”

In the same way that it was a good thing, and a commendable thing for that believer to not violate his conscience, and not cross the line into a place that he believed God forbade, it is a bad thing if he dismisses his conscience, and takes that bite.

I will allow Matthew Henry to have the last word. He write, “14-18 Christ deals gently with those who have true grace, though they are weak in it. Consider the design of Christ's death: also that drawing a soul to sin, threatens the destruction of that soul. Did Christ deny himself for our brethren, so as to die for them, and shall not we deny ourselves for them, so as to keep from any indulgence? We cannot hinder ungoverned tongues from speaking evil; but we must not give them any occasion. We must deny ourselves in many cases what we may lawfully do, when our doing it may hurt our good name. Our good often comes to be evil spoken of, because we use lawful things in an uncharitable and selfish manner. As we value the reputation of the good we profess and practise, let us seek that it may not be evil-spoken of. Righteousness, peace, and joy, are words that mean a great deal. As to God, our great concern is to appear before him justified by Christ's death, sanctified by the Spirit of his grace; for the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. As to our brethren, it is to live in peace, and love, and charity with them; following peace with all men. As to ourselves, it is joy in the Holy Ghost; that spiritual joy wrought by the blessed Spirit in the hearts of believers, which respects God as their reconciled Father, and heaven as their expected home. Regard to Christ in doing our duties, alone can make them acceptable. Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. They are approved by wise and good men; and the opinion of others is not to be regarded.”

Remember: “Our principle should be, 'In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in everything, love.'”

This concludes this Evening's Discussion, Romans 14.

Originally delivered on June 7th, 2012