Romans 14

14:1-3 Dietary issues

“Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” (Romans 14:1-4 NRSV)

The first matter of dispute concerned diet. Laws regarding diet are common in the religions of the world, in both ancient times and today. And differences of this type frequently keep adherents of different religions from eating together. Indeed, it is thought that this was the intention of God in instituting the dietary laws of Israel: to keep them from “inviting a Canaanite home to dinner,” as one wag put it so cleverly. But that very fact was why the abolition of the Old Testament dietary laws was an essential part of the gospel of Christ, for that gospel has at its heart the participation of all nations in the community of the forgiven and redeemed.

Yet although Paul was willing boldly to “beard the lion” on issues affecting salvation, when it came to matters that did not affect salvation, he advocated toleration of divergent views. The “weak” in dietary scruples in Rome and Corinth did not consider their abstention from meat to be a condition of their salvation. If they had, Paul would have rejected this belief as legalistic and denying the essential gospel truth that we are saved by faith alone. Table fellowship between the “strong” and “weak” groups was possible, if the “strong” became “weak” on occasions where both needed to be together in such fellowship. This was Paul’s own practice.

The specific origin and rationale of the “vegetarian” Roman Christians is debated. If these people were Jewish, it is not easy to see how Jewish law would have required abstention from meat. The whole spirit of the laws of Moses on clean and unclean meats (Leviticus 11) was to distinguish between two types of meat, not to reject all meat. In the Greco-Roman cities where Jews lived, Jews (and some Christians) sought to avoid eating meat offered in a pagan temple prior to its sale in the public meat market, and meat from animals not slaughtered in the correct (kosher) manner. But these two dangers did not make it impossible for Diaspora Jews to eat “clean” meat. Yet in spite of these problems, it may be that the “weak” in the Roman churches included Jews like Priscilla and Aquila (see my earlier blog posting) and gentile “God-fearers”.

14:5-12 Sacred days

“One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11It is written: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’” 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.” (Romans 14:5-12 NIV)

The second area of disagreement concerned whether one should observe certain days as “sacred” or not. Here again, one can cite the Jewish Ten Commandments as supporting the first view. But then the same can be said of most other religions of the Roman empire. In paganism it was unwise to undertake any important task on a “sacred” day, because it was unlucky to do so. On the surface this sounds similar to the biblical Sabbath, since the Israelites were forbidden to “work” on the Sabbath. But the reason for the prohibition was quite different. It had nothing to do with being “unlucky” and thus dooming any work done on that day to failure. Rather, it elevated the sacred Sabbath as a time for rest and worship. But these “strong” Christians apparently thought any observance of  “Sabbath” laws to be a denial of Christ’s having fulfilled (and thus abrogated) Jewish ceremonial customs. For them, treating a day—such as the Lord’s Day—differently from the other days was a retreat into Judaism and a denial of the radical transformations that Jesus introduced by his death and resurrection.

In verses 6-8 Paul singles out the good motives of Christians on both sides of the issue. As with the dietary scruples, he wishes to affirm both groups and urge them to learn to live together in love and understanding.

Verse 7 on the surface sounds like not living to oneself means a failure to realize that we live to and for one another. In fact, as verses 8-9 show, he means that believers on both sides of the issue live for the Lord Jesus. Yet if both sides live for the same Lord Jesus, the point is that they should live together in harmony and love.

In verses 10-12 he makes the point that, since sincere believers on both sides of the issue do what they do to please the Lord Jesus, and we will all receive his approval or disapproval at the time of judgment (v. 10), we should not preempt that judgment by making our own judgments ahead of time. In this Paul stands in the tradition of Jesus himself, who urged that his followers refrain from judging each other (Matt 7:1).

14:13-20 The recommended attitude

“Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.” (Romans 14:13-20 NIV)

Clothing ourselves with Jesus Christ (13:14) means acting as Jesus did and does (Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5; Rev. 3:18). And although Paul usually uses the word “God” to refer to God the Father, and “Lord” to Jesus (Rom. 4:24; 5:1, 11; 6:23; 7:25; 10:9; 14:6), he may not always have done so. It is therefore possible that in v. 3 the “God” who has “welcomed” (NRSV, ESV; “accepted” NIV) the “weaker” Christians is in fact Jesus.
Both words, “welcome” and “accept” (14:1, 4), properly express a common meaning of the Greek proslambanō, that of admitting someone into a fellowship (Acts 18:26; 28:2; Rom 14:1, 3; 15:7; Philem 1:17). And the imperfective (“present tense”) form of the verb here expresses a habitual or regular activity: “go on welcoming/admitting” such persons into your assemblies. The fact that disagreements between two attitudes existed in the Christian assemblies in Rome was no reason to institute a policy of selective admissions. This entire letter is suffused with a passionate desire that Christian assemblies around the empire be characterized by mutually accepting groups of believers in Jesus, first and foremost Jewish and gentile believers.

It is quite possible that we should imagine a setting in someone's house, where a guest at a Christian gathering may not be able to eat whatever is offered. The admonition to welcome such a person may therefore be quite concrete. It is important to note that among the poor the eating of meat was comparatively rare, and occurred chiefly on festal occasions or in the homes of the well-to-do. (Ziesler, Romans 327).

The whole question of the origin of these terms “weak” and “strong” to designate persons with certain scruples (the “weak”) versus others who do not have them (the “strong”) is debated (see my earlier blog posting).

Julie Galambush, who converted from Christianity to Judaism, puts it this way in her book The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament’s Jewish Writers Created a Christian Book (2005, p. 199):

It is unclear whether the division between "weak and strong" corresponds to that between Jew and Gentile. Are the Jews observant and therefore "weak," or is this an intra-Jewish debate over what constitutes proper observance for Jewish believers? In either case, Paul's response is simple and unequivocal: "Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat" (14:3).

Were these Paul’s own preferred terms or those of the “strong” in the various congregations? We know from the Corinthian correspondence that Paul’s critics there condescendingly called him “weak” (2 Cor 10:10). And his response was to accept the term as a compliment: he gloried in being “weak”, but “weak” in the way he chose to interpret the word (1 Cor 1:27; 4:10; 12:10; 13:9; 2 Cor 11:29; 12:10; 13:4, 9). But that was in a somewhat “adversarial” context, where others were attacking him and his right to lead them spiritually.

In Romans no such situation can be assumed. Rather he is pleading for peace, unity and love among the Christians in Rome. So he does not mock the “strong”, as he did in Corinth, but pleads for mutual understanding.

In both verses 2 and 5 Paul merely describes the situation, which was familiar to his hearers: there are differing views among true Christians as to what may be eaten and what days one should observe as sacred. In both cases he advises those on both sides of the issues not to despise or judge those on the other side.