Romans Chapter 14
“In every generation, there is an attempt to justify a ‘broader fellowship’ to include those preaching and practicing some sin or doctrinal error. The attempt to justify such invariably includes Romans 14. The advocate of a ‘broader fellowship’ notes the apostle's instructions to ‘receive’ the one with whom we have a difference in preaching and practice (Romans 14:1). The next step is to say the differences discussed would include a doctrinal matter or practice of some sin. Thus, we are told we must receive those who are preaching some errors or practicing some sins if we obey this instruction. The crux of the issue is this ‘Does Romans 14 include doctrinal error and sinful practice in the differences under discussion?’” 1 In the January 2nd, 1992 issue of the Guardian of Truth it was pointed out that “every false doctrine to appear in the last 200 years has appealed to Romans 14-15 to pave the way for compromise to open doors of fellowship”. Those who advanced instrumental music in worship, missionary societies among the churches, and subsequent forms of liberalism constantly appealed to Romans 14. When Premillennialism was infiltrating churches of Christ in the 1930's -40's, many pleas for tolerance were based on Romans 14-15. In fact it was argued that we could maintain fellowship with those that taught Premillennialism: “In conclusion, my proposal for a ground of unity and fellowship to our challenging brethren is a follows: on the basis of Romans 14, although we feel that you misinterpret many of the prophetic passages, we will receive you as brethren; and on the basis of Romans 14, though you think we are unwarranted in giving these prophetic passages their literal import, we request that you receive us”2 “Ed Harrell wrote 17 articles in Christianity Magazine explaining why he can continue in fellowship with brethren holding ‘five or six, perhaps more", contradictory positions on divorce and remarriage’. In seven of those articles Romans 14 was used. After granting that the issues found there ‘were not matters bound by God’, he adds, ‘but the intent of the passage clearly encompasses more than that’” 3 The question remains does Romans chapter 14 describe a situation in which one brother is right and another is in the wrong and holds a false practice? Romans 14:1 “But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples” 1 2
Sin, Doctrinal Error, and Romans 14. Harry Obsorne pg. 1 'Unity and Debates'. Word and Work, 1951, pg. 57-50 J.R.
Clark 3
Halbrook pg. 31
“Weak in faith”: This is the Christian who at this time cannot bring themselves to eat meat (14:2). The weakness’ of this chapter is not a moral weakness. The stronger brother realizes that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19; 1 Tim. 4:3-4). The man who is weak has heard those truths, but at this time his conscience would still bother him if he went ahead and ate (14:23). At the same time, no verse commands us to eat meats; therefore he can abstain and not sin. “Receive ye”: “Receive into your fellowship” (Con). “Welcome a man” (Mof). “Take to yourselves”. 4 “Denotes to take to oneself, or to receive, always in the Middle Voice, signifying a special interest on the part of the receiver, suggesting a welcome. The same is found in verse 3”. 5 Right here we learn something about Romans 14. The first argument that I would offer to prove that Paul is not discussing matters in which one brother is advocating sin or error is the command to receive them into fellowship. By contrast, we are commanded not to receive those who are practicing sin and spreading error (2 John 9-11). In the case of one who violates the teaching of Christ, John clearly states, “receive him not”. Now if Romans 14 is dealing with a situation or applies to situations in which a brother is in error, we have a big problem with 2 John 9-11, because John says that if we do receive such a one, we become involved in his error and are also guilty. “Clearly, John says no harbor is to be given to one practicing sin or preaching error”. 6 Romans 14:1 “But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples” “Not for decision of scruples”: “But not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (NASV. “Welcome, but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions” (Arndt pg. 185). “Welcome a man whose faith is weak, but not with the idea of arguing over his scruples” (Phillips). “Not with a view of deciding (or passing sentence on) his doubts”. 7 This chapter then is dealing with opinions that one is not to condemn. Yet we are commanded to expose and oppose what is false (Ephesians 5:11). Romans 14:2 “One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs” “One man hath faith to eat all things”: This is the stronger brother; he understands and can accept that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19; 1 Timothy 4:3). When he eats, his conscience does not bother him. While God clearly informed Christians that all foods were clean and that is was perfectly alright to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as it was done with no worship to the idol and other's were not offended, yet for those brought up under the Jewish dietary laws or those brought up worshipping the idol, it would take time to remove all your doubts. Clearly we are dealing with something that is not right or wrong, because the “practice” under consideration is something that a person can do by “faith”. Remember, what a person eats is a manner of personal opinion, and food does not improve our relationship with God and neither will it harm our relationship (1 Corinthians 8:8 “Now our food cannot change our place in God's sight” (Con). “God's approval of 4 5 6 7
A.T. Robertson pg. 412 W.E. Vine pg. 255 Osborne pg. 2 Gr. Ex. N.T. pg. 701
us is not based on the food we take” (Bas). “Just remember that God doesn't care whether we eat it nor not” (Tay). This is the subject matter of Romans 14. Romans 14 is clearly dealing with matters of indifference and not matters of sin and doctrinal error. A matter of indifference is not right or wrong in and of itself. It is a practice which God allows, but does not require. In this brethren may differ in their thinking and practice without any sin being involved” 8 Romans 14:3 “Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. “Set at nought”: To despise. “Regard with contempt” (NASV). “Eateth not”: The brother who does not have the faith to eat all things. “And”: Notice that in this situation both brothers were despising or condemning each other. “Judge”: To condemn. This chapter cannot be dealing with issues of right and wrong, because in this chapter no judging or condemnation of either practice, whether eating or abstaining, is allowed. Yet in cases where sin is involved, judgments have to be made (Matthew 18:15; Romans 16:18; 1 Corinthians 5:3 “have already as though I were present judged him that hath so wrought this thing”; 5:11). The same truth is found in 1 Corinthians 8:8 “But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.” “Commend”-“God’s approval of us is not based on the food we take” (Bas). This is why two brothers engaged in two different practices are commanded to accept each other, because neither of them is in the wrong. But can this same principle be applied to: Instrumental music in worship, Premillennialism, Institutionalism, and every view of the Marriage issue? What about those who claim that divorce is never allowed, even in cases that involve fornication? (Matthew 19:9) Are we to sit by and silently allow (do not pass judgment on their opinions) someone to teach that people who divorce their mates for fornication have sinned? If Romans 14 applies to doctrinal matters, then I would be forced to conclude that whatever position I took on any issue would be a safe position.
Romans 14 is dealing with a practice This chapter is dealing with more than merely a privately held opinion; actually the chapter is dealing with continual practice that could be public. Note: 14:2 “he may eat all things’; 14:3 “Let not him that eateth”; 14:3 “and let not him which eateth not”. Verse three begins to make that point regarding God's acceptance of both brethren in their practice. Some try to use Romans 14 to excuse the person that merely teaches error, yet does not practice it himself or who believes it but claims that they do not teach it. Yet this chapter is not merely dealing with a privately held opinion, but something that was regularly practiced while others knew about it. Two Patterns: 2 John 9-11 and Romans 14. GOT January 2, 1992. p. 24 8
Harry R. Osborne.
Romans 14:3 “Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him” “For”: Here is the reason why there is to be no condemnation, no contempt, and no interruption in fellowship. “God hath received him”: The word hath is in the past tense. God already in the past has received this Christian in their practice, and therefore the other brother had no right to condemn him. Notice that this is true for the non-eater and the eater. “Received”: To admit into friendship. The eater has fellowship with God and his eating is not endangering that relationship. Obviously this man is doing nothing wrong if God is accepting him in his practice of eating. “Some brethren today believe the point emphasized in this chapter is the individual nature of the practices discussed as opposed to collective action which involves the whole church in the practice. They believe Paul's admonitions here would apply to matters that may be inherently wrong or sinful, but would not involve others in those actions. However, Paul makes his appeal to receive the meat-eater based on the fact that 'God hath received him’, received him in a sinful individual practice?” 9 In addition, whether one practices sin privately verses involving others in it does not mean that such a sin is acceptable to God. Romans 14:4 “Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? To his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand” “He”: In this context the last person mentioned is the person who has faith to eat all things. “He shall be made to stand”: That is, he will stand justified before God at the last day because he is not doing anything wrong. “The Lord hath power to made him stand”: No one has the authority to reverse the Lord’s acceptance of the eater, and thus cause him to be condemned. Remember, neither person in Romans 14 is in a fallen or unfaithful condition. The expression he shall be made to stand, does not mean that God will overlook his sins or that grace will unconditionally cover his sins, rather, he will stand justified because it is presently right in God’s sight. Compare with Ephesians 6:11 and Philippians 1:10. A great danger I see in applying verse 4 to a fallen Christian or a Christian in error is that this would have verse 4 teaching that God will save all fallen Christians, that is, once saved always saved. If Romans 14 is dealing with matters of sin and error then this verse would mean that God will unconditionally save all Christians who are in sin or error. Yet, the book thus far has taught the exact opposite (Romans 8:17; 11:22). Romans 14:5 “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind” “Esteemeth”: Here is another illustration that is equal to the example of whether one eats or does not eat. The practice of esteeming days is clearly identified as being of the same nature as the eating of or not eating of meat (14:6). Carefully note we are dealing with the observing or not observing of days, which does not violate other passages. Continuing to observe the Sabbath Day or the feast days of the Old Testament as a means of gaining favor with God would be 9
Sin, Doctrinal Error, and Romans 14.
Osborne pg. 6
wrong (Galatians 4:10-11; 5:4). Failing to see the importance of the First Day of the Week would also be wrong (Acts 20:7; Hebrews 10:25). Rather, I can set aside a certain day for myself to study, pray, and so on. Or I can take time out of every day. “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind”: The setting apart a day for God was right, as long as it met the above condition. “Fully assured”: “Fully convinced” (NASV). Being fully convinced means, “I know that this practice or belief is authorized; I do have the right to participate; I can participate without any qualms!” This last statement is another proof that Paul is dealing with matters neither right nor wrong within themselves. You see if one applies Romans 14 to matters of sin and error, then one would have Paul saying, “It is all right to sin as long as you are fully persuaded'. "Why would the sinner be the better because he was mistakenly sure in his own mind?" If Paul is not dealing with matters of indifference, this chapter would have Paul not only tolerating error, but also encouraging it! Obviously Paul is not teaching that sin or error become acceptable just as long as one is sincere. Paul himself was fully convinced in his own mind that persecuting Christians was the right thing to do—yet it was not. Romans 14:6 “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” “Unto the Lord”: This chapter is dealing with practices that it can be said are done for the Lord. Sin or error can never be done “for the Lord”. “Does it in the Lord’s honor” (Gspd). “For the Lord’s sake” (Wey). “He giveth God thanks”: In addition this chapter is dealing with practices in which a person could pray and be heard. Clearly, sinning and giving thanks would be an insult to God and Paul would not teach that praying before, during, or after sinning somehow makes it right. Romans 14:7 “For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself” The motivation behind each group was, what they were doing was with God in mind. Each man in this section was motivated by what would please God. Neither man wanted to live for himself. The men in both groups have sincere motives. One man ate meat because God allowed it (1 Tim. 4:4). The other man did not because of his conscience, and he respected God’s will regarding not violating a tender conscience (Romans 14:23). Romans 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. All the people in this chapter are living for the Lord in their practice. One man ate because he knew that the Lord had declared all foods clean, the other man did not eat because he did not want to violate this conscience—something that the Lord did not want either. Romans 14:9 “For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living”
One of the purposes for the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, was that He would become the Judge of all. Romans 14:10 “But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? Or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God” “Judge”: This is the type of judging or condemnation mentioned in 14:3. The practices or beliefs that fit into this chapter are practices that we are not allowed to condemn or speak against. Clearly that would rule out anything that violates God’s word or conflicts with His teaching. Romans 14:11 “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God” Romans 14:12 “So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God” Romans 14:13 “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling” Here is additional evidence that Paul is not discussing sin and error in this chapter. If Paul has been arguing for us to accept the person in individual sin that would be a stumbling block. Paul is discussing things that are morally neutral, that is, whether you did or did not do them, makes no difference. But when pushed or in a certain setting could cause problems (14:20,23), to push the non-meat eater to eat, and thus violate his conscience, would be to place a stumbling block in someone’s way (1 Corinthians 8:7-9). Romans 14:14 “I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” “That nothing is unclean of itself”: This passage clearly sums up what the chapter is discussing, it is dealing with matters that are not sinful in and of themselves. “Paul isn't discussing fornication, murder, adultery, homosexuality, stealing or the like” 10 Paul mentions this same category in 1 Corinthians 6:12 “all things are lawful for me”. This chapter is dealing with principles that govern lawful things that someone might have a conscience problem over. “Save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean”: It is not the something in the meat but rather something in the man. Eating meat or doing anything when it violates my conscience, is wrong (14:20,23). Once again, Paul is not dealing with matters that are sinful, because God would not teach that something is evil only if we believe it is. Adultery is still unclean and wrong even if someone thinks that it is justified in his or her case. Romans 14:15 “For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died” 10
Romans. McGuiggan pg. 402
Starting from verse 13 Paul is addressing the meat-eater. He was right, he had a right to eat meat, but that right could be abused. The following verses will express the same truth as addressed in 1 Corinthians chapters 8 and 10. In certain situations, eating meat, and especially in those chapters meat that had been sacrificed to idols, could do harm to another. In addition, the one who ate was not to force the weaker brother to eat. Yet in reference to things sinful, they are always wrong no matter what the circumstance, but this chapter is dealing with matters that were right but could be pressed to the point of causing harm. What a demanding thing “love” is. Love is not doing whatI-want-to-do. Some ignorantly assert, “Love makes no demands, love doesn’t hurt.” Well, love hurt Christ! Love made demands of the Father! I cannot harmonize this statement with what some people want this chapter to teach. Are we to stand by while people go into error? Are we to overlook what they are teaching? Are we to remain silent? (Galatians 6:1-2) If love will not push a liberty upon a brother or sister who is not prepared as yet to engage in it with a pure conscience (14:23); if love will forego a right so as not to cause a brother to be tripped up; if love will rearrange its life for a brother (14:21), then will love justify a brother in sin and error? Romans 14:16 “Let not then your good be evil spoken of” This is another verse that spells out the subject matter and application of this chapter. We are talking about things that are “good” and not sinful. Eating meat was a good and wholesome practice (1 Timothy 4:1-4). Romans 14:17 “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” The matters under discussion here are not essential elements in the Kingdom of God. This is why they could be practiced and not practiced. Being in the kingdom was not dependent upon eating or not eating meat. Yet whether one sins or whether the truth is taught or not taught are essential elements of what the Kingdom of God is all about. Sin is a big deal in the Kingdom that Jesus established (Matthew 18:15). Romans 14:18 “For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men” “For he that herein serveth Christ”: “Serves Christ in this way pleases God” (TCNT). God is not pleased when we sin or advocate teaching contrary to His word, but He is pleased when we do not push our rights or liberties to the point of causing another to stumble. Romans 14:20 “Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence” “The work of God”: This is the non-eating brother in the chapter. “For meat’s sake”: We are talking about food—not adultery, stealing, lying, error and so on. “All things indeed are clean”: We
are discussing matters which are clean, that is, morally pure. “Howbeit it is evil for the man who eateth with offence”: A clean thing can become sinful—if we go ahead and practice it without the conviction that it is acceptable. Violating our conscience even when it comes to good things is a sin. This chapter is not teaching that there needs to be tolerance of sin and error, rather it teaches the exact opposite. Even in matters that are good and clean sin can happen if we violate our conscience. Romans 14:21 “It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth” Romans 14:22 “The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth” “The faith”: The faith under consideration here is one's own personal conviction about eating meats, and we can exercise it in a situation were weak brethren are not present. This is not the faith that must be shared at all cost (Mark 16:15-16), neither is this a “believe what you want to believe doctrine” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). Paul is discussing the faith of the meat-eater, and his or her personal conviction. The conviction was right (Paul sides with it), but the man is not to broadcast it. He does not have to place his convictions in this area on display, so as to offend the non-eater. But the opposite is true in what people commonly call matters of faith. In this realm we are to preach our convictions to the whole world (Mark 16:15; 2 Cor. 10:5; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 2:15). “Have thou to thyself before God”: If a weak brother is around, then exercise your liberty in private or another setting. “Approveth”: This is not a subjective opinion. The man that does not condemn himself in what he eats can do so because he realizes that God does not condemn him (1 Timothy 4:3-4). There is an objective standard of truth behind this man's allowing of himself to eat. Happy is the person who has been able to bring their conscience in line with the instructions of God. Romans 14:23 “But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin” God does not want us to violate our conscience even in a matter that is good because that is a manifestation of a lack of faith. We would be doing something that we really do not believe in. God only wants the non-eater eating when he can fully bring his conscience in line with His word, after all. This does not mean that we only are required to keep the commands that are comfortable to us. This chapter is not dealing with necessities, like preaching the gospel, or attending, worshipping God, helping others, or keeping ourselves pure. Rather it is dealing with matters that are morally neutral, that is, optional. Concluding Thoughts
While the brothers in this chapter are not to condemn or belittle each other, this does not mean that they are forbidden to study together. The stronger brother can certainly point out passages to the non-eater that give him the right to eat. But the stronger brother is not
to force the issue. There is really no hurry here, whether his brother ever eats meat or not in the future will have no effect on his eternal destiny.
This is not a chapter that applies to matters of sin.
Neither is this a chapter that applies to direct commands that are not optional. One cannot argue that they do not need to be baptized because they have a conscience problem with it.
Neither is the chapter requiring that the meat-eater cease his practice. He could still eat, just as long as he did not push it upon his brother.
The weak brother was expected to grow in his understanding (Hebrews 5:12-14).