Romans 14:1

Weak in the faith. That is, one who has but a limited grasp of the principles of righteousness. He is eager to be saved and is willing to do whatever he believes is required of him. But in the immaturity of his Christian experience (see Heb. 5:11 to 6:2), and probably also as the result of former education and belief, he attempts to make his salvation more certain by the observance of certain rules and regulations that are in reality not binding upon him. To him these regulations assume great importance. He regards them as absolutely binding upon him for salvation, and he is distressed and confused when he sees other Christians about him, especially those who seem to be more experienced, who do not share his scruples.

Paul’s statements in Rom. 14 have been variously interpreted, and have been used by some: (1) to disparage a vegetarian diet, (2) to abolish the distinction between clean and unclean meats, and (3) to remove all distinction between days, thus abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath. That Paul is doing none of these three becomes evident when this chapter is studied in the light of certain religious and related problems that troubled some of the 1st-century Christians.

Paul mentions various problems that are an occasion of misunderstanding between brethren: (1) those relating to diet (v. 2), and (2) those relating to the observance of certain days (vs. 5, 6). In 1 Cor. 8 the problem of the strong versus the weak brother, as regards diet, is also dealt with. The letter to the Corinthians was written less than a year before that to the Romans. It seems reasonable to conclude that in 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 Paul is dealing with essentially the same problem. In Corinthians the problem is identified as the propriety of eating foods sacrificed to idols. According to the ancient practice pagan priests carried on an extensive merchandise of the animal sacrifices offered to idols. Paul told the Corinthian believers — converts both from Judaism and from paganism — that inasmuch as an idol was nothing there was no wrong, per se, in eating foods dedicated to it. However, he explains, because of earlier background and training, and differences in spiritual discernment, not all had this “knowledge” and could not with a free conscience eat such foods (see on 1 Cor. 8). Hence Paul urged those without scruples regarding these foods not to place a stumbling block in a brother’s way (Rom. 14:13). His admonition is thus in harmony with the decision of the Jerusalem Council, and doubtless throws light on at least one reason why that council took the stand it did on this subject (see on Acts 15). Probably for fear of offending in this matter some Christians abstained from flesh foods entirely, which means that their food was restricted to “herbs,” that is, vegetables (see Rom. 14:2).

Paul is not speaking of foods hygienically harmful. He is not suggesting that the Christian of strong faith may eat anything, regardless of its effect upon his physical well-being. He has already made plain, in ch. 12:1, that the true believer will see to it that his body is preserved holy and acceptable to God as a living sacrifice. The man of strong faith will regard it as an act of spiritual worship to maintain good health (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 10:31).

A further fact throws light on the problems Paul is discussing. Only dimly, at first, did many Jewish Christians comprehend that the ceremonial law had met its fulfillment in Christ (see on Col. 2:14-16) and was henceforth no longer binding. Indeed, the first Christians were not called upon abruptly to cease attendance at the annual Jewish feasts or to repudiate at once all ceremonial rites. Under the ceremonial law the Jews were to keep seven annual sabbaths. Paul himself attended a number of the feasts after his conversion (Acts 18:21; etc.). Though he taught that circumcision was nothing (1 Cor. 7:19), he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), and agreed to fulfill a vow according to the stipulations of the ancient code (Acts 21:20-27). Under the circumstances it appeared best to allow the various elements of the Jewish ceremonial law gradually to disappear as the mind and conscience became enlightened. Thus, it was inevitable that among Jewish Christians there would arise questions as to the propriety of keeping certain “days” — Jewish holydays, in connection with their annual feasts (see Lev. 23:1-44; see on Col. 2:14-17).

In view of these facts it becomes evident that Paul, in Rom. 14, is not (1) disparaging a diet of “herbs” (vegetables), or (2) doing away with the age-old Biblical distinction between clean and unclean meats, or (3) abolishing the seventh-day Sabbath of the moral law (see on ch. 3:31). The person who thus claims must read into Paul’s argument something that is not there.

That Paul does not teach or even imply the abolition of the seventh-day Sabbath has been recognized by such conservative commentators, for example, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, in their comment on ch. 14:5, 6: “From this passage about the observance of days, Alford unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath-law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined amongst the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, ‘The Son of man is LORD even of the sabbath day’ (see Mark 2:28) — it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers amongst those vanished Jewish festival days, which only ‘weakness’ could imagine to be still in force — a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.”

In Rom. 14:1 to 15:14 Paul urges the stronger Christians to give sympathetic consideration to the problems of their weaker brethren. As in chs. 12 and 13, he shows that the source of unity and peace in the church is genuine Christian love. This same love and mutual respect will ensure continuing harmony among the body of believers, in spite of differing opinions and scruples in matters of religion.

Receive ye. Gr. proslambano, “to take to oneself.” Those who are “weak in the faith” should nevertheless be received into Christian fellowship as brethren, because Christ has thus received and welcomed them (ch. 15:7).

Doubtful disputations. Or, “disputes over opinions” (RSV). The “weak” believers are to be welcomed into fellowship, but not for the purpose of drawing them into controversy. The stronger brethren are not called upon to settle or pass judgment on the scruples of those who may be weaker in the faith.