Romans 14

A Critical, Concise Analysis And Exegesis

What I am about to write is not "after men" for I neither received it of men, neither was I taught it by man. I have never discussed Romans 14 with brother Hailey. I spoke briefly with brother Harrell on the telephone in 1991, telling him that I was writing some material on "Liberty" which included some discussion on Romans 14. I asked him if he applied Romans 14 to patience with a false teacher and he said, "No." I have never read brother Owens' material, though I have it in a file. I have had a brief exchange of ideas with brother Pickup and corresponded with brother Halbrook in two letters. I have talked to brother Turner on two different occasions on the passage – total conversation time was about 30 minutes. A few weeks ago, I exchanged about three emails with brother Rickie Jenkins and later talked to his father, Jesse, on the phone for no more than 10 minutes on the passage. Other than that there has been a smattering of casual conversations with men of no mean reputation. Of all of these men I have found that two agree with my conclusions but our conclusions were independent of and prior to our exchanges of ideas. "But of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me." (Indulge me for a moment in what one brother called my "pitiful attempt at humor" without distracting from the gravity of the situation).

I, therefore, find myself in the unenviable position of saying that almost everyone else is wrong in their application of this text. The people who have applied this text to a "continued disagreement about truth" or to a list of "conscientious scruples" have misused it. I would invite you to restudy the text and apply it first to the situation that Paul addressed and understand clearly his reason for saying what he said. Second, if you wish to make an application to our situations, exercise great caution that you do not approach the text to force an interpretation and, thereby, accommodate a current practice. Third, I do not believe our real problems relate to Romans 14. I think they relate to the application of principles of fellowship during continued disagreements about truth and how we scripturally identify false teachers.

MY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE TEXT:

I believe the context of Romans 14 is different from 1 Cor. 8 and 10 in that this context addresses primarily brethren from a Jewish background who would inherently have problems about clean and unclean meats. Also, because of their national and religious heritage they would have problems about keeping certain feast days. The meats and feast days were common problems in the first century, because many Jews had become Christians. It is from this setting that problems would naturally arise which are addressed by Paul in Romans 14. Most of what Paul writes in Romans addresses the attempts on the part of some Jewish Christians to make the gospel system an adjunct of the law.

A. THERE ARE TWO PARTIES ADDRESSED: (1) THE WEAK IN FAITH; (2) THE STRONG IN FAITH.

The two parties probably represent several persons in two categories with each party having a commonality of the same disposition. I say that because the admonition in v. 1, is receive "ye," though most of the addresses are in the individual form.

1. The "weak in faith" --

The "weak in faith" is descriptive of the person whose conscience restricts him from doing what he has the liberty to do. Such a one believed he could only eat herbs, perhaps so as to avoid contamination by any meat that was unclean. This person may or may not have understood that meat restrictions had been removed and that he was not required to keep certain feast days. My conclusion is that he did not understand his liberty for if he had understood the liberty to eat all meats then he would not have judged (condemned) his brother (v. 3). Even after Paul wrote this epistle, though the weak in faith understood his brother's liberty to eat meats, he might still have been restricted in his behavior by his own conscience that would condemn himself if he ate, even when he knew that he had the liberty to so act -- "...but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean, (v. 14), ...All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence (v. 20)...And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin," (v. 23).

"Weak in faith" (v. 1) is literally "weak in the faith." It may have reference to "the embodied doctrine," like Jude 3, and, if that be the case, then it would mean that this one is weak in his understanding of the faith.

2. "The strong in faith" --

Such a person as we might label "strong in faith" is not so deemed by Paul in this chapter but in 15:1, he says, "We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves." The chapter division here is unfortunate. This is a title we may appropriately attach to this person, because it serves as the antithesis of "weak in faith". It refers to the person who correctly understands his liberty because his understanding of truth is correct. It is easier to write "strong in faith" rather than "the brother who understands his right to eat meat and is free from the law of Moses." There is, however, a problem associated with such knowledge at times -- "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know," (1 Cor. 8:1b-2). This person correctly believes that he may eat all things but his attitude and behavior toward the one who is weak in faith is wrong. He "despises" (treats with contempt or regards as nothing) the weak brother. He probably was flaunting his new found liberty with little regard for the effect it would have on his brother. He seemed unwilling to accept his responsibility for causing a brother to sin, when he influenced him to violate his conscience (note vv. 15-16; 20-21).

B. HOW EACH WAS TO TREAT THE OTHER:

Paul does not address just those strong in the faith and tell them to welcome and not to despise the brother weak in faith. He addresses the faults in both parties and admonishes them to treat each other as brothers in consideration for each one's individual problems.

1. Paul first directs the one who would be considered "strong in faith" to act in certain way toward the "weak in faith." --

First, he is to "receive him." "To receive" is "to accept," "take to oneself," "to welcome" (compare 15:7; Philemon 12, 17, Note Vine's, p. 937). That acceptance is not to be with "judgments of thoughts," which would be a judging of motives. We never have the right to judge motives since we are unable to see into the hearts of men.

Furthermore, he is not to "despise" or treat with contempt the weaker brother. Very likely he, as his weaker brother was condemning him, was also condemning his weaker brother (v. 13).

2. Paul also lays out a proper course for the one "weak in faith" to pursue in his behavior toward his brother who understood liberty properly.

The one "weak-in-the-faith" was not to "judge" (ie. condemn) (v. 3), nor to "set him at nought (ie., despise) (v. 10), the strong one . It is implied in v. 16, that he was speaking evil of the behavior of his brother who was strong in faith.

C. WHAT EACH NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND:

1. The "weak in faith" needed to understand some truth about what was lawful and correct his attitude toward his brother.

He first needed to understand that God no longer made restrictions about meats -- "...there is nothing unclean of itself...all things indeed are pure" (v. 14, 20). Though the truth about meats and keeping the Law of Moses had been revealed earlier in another setting, if this brother who was weak in faith had access to this revelation, he did not comprehend it. He also needed to understand and accept his brother's liberty to do things which were lawful. Furthermore, he needed to accept his proper position in a brother to brother relationship. While each person surely must exercise care and concern for his brother's religious practice, we are not judges who make laws. Each person is accountable to his Lord and we are not to occupy that position (vv. 3, 6-13).

2. The strong brother needed to understand that knowledge and liberty misused become a vice and cause one to act contrary to the way the Lord acts.

He must accept responsibility for misusing his liberty. When he eats meats or does not keep some feast days and influences his brother to violate his conscience, he is accountable (v. 13). He can destroy the very brother for whom Christ died (v. 15) by his meats. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing, whereby thy brother stumbleth" (v. 21). The stumbling or being grieved is not merely a distasteful thing to a brother -- it is causing one to sin by doing what he believes to be wrong.

D. DID PAUL'S INSTRUCTION BRING BOTH PARTIES TO A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR LIBERTY AND RESPONSIBILITIES?

It is granted that the main thrust of Paul's remarks were to correct an attitude each brother had toward the other. But that necessarily presupposes that to correct the attitude each had toward the other, they must understand the truth about the lawfulness of eating meats and keeping certain days. If the "weak-in-the-faith" brother who received Paul's instruction in Romans 14, still believed it was wrong for his brother to eat those meats, how could he cease judging him? Could he say that what he once believed was wrong now becomes right just because Paul says he is to cease judging his brother? On what basis would he cease judging his brother except that he understood that all meats were clean (vv. 14, 20)? Are Paul's statements in vv. 14, 20, addressing attitudes? You see, the brother's conscience might still be weak so that he could not eat all meats -- that would violate his conscience, because he had doubts (vv. 22-23) -- but he would have to accept the truth that his brother could eat all meats.

E. THE FIRST CONSIDERATION IN APPLYING ROMANS 14 MUST ALWAYS BE TO THAT WHICH IS LAWFUL. WE CANNOT TAKE ROMANS 14 AND APPLY IT, FOR INSTANCE, TO BRETHREN WHO WORSHIP IN AN UNSCRIPTURAL FASHION.

The things under consideration in Romans 14 are things which were lawful to do. It was lawful to eat all meats and it was also lawful to keep certain days but it was not required. I believe that the things included in Romans 14 are the things under consideration in the context -- eating meats and keeping certain days. What else will fit into the context? -- perhaps circumcision. The thing to be considered first is whether or not something is lawful; then, if it is lawful, we may discuss our liberty to do it and how we should treat others whose consciences may be weak about their liberty. Romans 14 does not address continued disagreements among brethren about unlawful things. It addresses specifically a conflict in practice but the practice being questioned was lawful. We might apply some principles from the text but the specific application of "receive ye" to one practicing error is a misapplication of the text.

The two most common explanations both assume something which they have no right to assume. Each assumes that Paul's information about the right to eat all meats and keep certain days was not accepted and believed by all parties -- I believe that is a wrong assumption. But based on each position's assumption that the information Paul wrote did not bring all to the same understanding of the lawfulness of eating all meats and keeping certain days, each position misuses Romans 14 by making it apply to continued disagreements about truth.

One position is that Romans 14 applies to continued disagreements about "conscientious scruples" but the one called by Paul "weak in faith" would not have conceived that his convictions were "conscientious scruples" to start with or he would not have been judging the brother eating all meats. This application, then, to us today is that Romans 14 applies to our "conscientious scruples" but the problem with that is that people who disagree with them on certain doctrinal issues, do not consider that disagreement to be over "conscientious scruple." Do I hear the echo of charges made by institutional brethren when referring to those opposed to church supported institutions -- "Those are just your opinions"? I think it is a mistake to make a list of things which we categorize as "conscientious scruples" and fit them into Romans 14, for the simple reason that those lists always include things which are considered to be "unlawful" by others who would make their own lists. What you might consider to be a weak brother's "conscientious scruples,"he may view as "unlawful."

The other position is that Romans 14 applies to a continued disagreement about things each believed to be lawful; that is, they continued to disagree about the lawfulness of meats and days. That position, then, makes the application to things we disagree about today under a category of "doctrine." But the objection of the one weak in faith was not just to the belief of the one who is called strong – it was a condemnation of his practice. If that be the application of Romans 14, how do we determine, from this context, how serious a continued disagreement about truth must be before we quit applying Paul's instructions in this context? The reason that some have been so aggressive in opposing that position is that when they see the word "doctrine" they automatically think about "major doctrinal differences". They immediately set their defences against what they view as a "unity in diversity" promotion.

Why not conclude, and I think justifiably so, that Paul's statements caused all to accept the truth that all meats were lawful and certain days could be kept lawfully? I think v. 14, and v. 20, are designed to verify that truth, though I know that much of what Paul says addresses proper attitudes each should have toward the other. Then comprehend that the results of that understanding would mean that some who, though they now knew this to be true, still could not conscientious do what they KNEW they had the liberty to do. They might not be fully persuaded in their own minds (v. 5, 23) but would cease judging their brethren. On the other hand the brother who understood fully his lawful right to eat meats would not destroy the brother weak in faith (v. 20). In this way all would follow after the things which make for peace and which would build up each one (v. 19).

In Romans 14, it was PAUL who identified the brother as "weak in faith". He did so based on that brother's self limiting conscience that restricted him from doing what he had the right to do. Paul knew the weak brother had the liberty to eat meats -- the weak brother did not understand his liberty and condemned the one who ate all meats. He truly believed his brother was wrong. The only way he could cease judging the brother who had a correct understanding of his liberty was to accept the truth that all meats were clean.

When Paul finished the letter to the Romans and it was received by those brethren, the weak brother had two choices: (1) accept the truth about meats and quit judging his brother; or (2) reject the truth and find himself condemned. The brother who was strong in faith had two choices: (1) continue in his insistence on his rights to the destruction of his weak brother; or (2) correct his attitude, accept the one whose conscience would not allow him to do what was right to do and adjust his practice so that he would never cause his weak brother to violate his conscience and sin.

"We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please our own selves," (Rom. 15:1).

- Jim R. Everett