Romans 14 -- Examining the Text
By Keith Greer

In October of 1995, brother Mike Willis wrote a series of articles on Romans 14. In his initial article, dated October 5, brother Willis made what I believe to be a correct observation about the Romans 14 text. "There are only three alternatives available to us in reference to the interpretation of Romans 14: Proposition 1--Romans 14 includes ALL matters of faith. Proposition 2--Romans 14 includes SOME matters if faith. Proposition 3--Romans 14 includes NO matters of faith." Brother Willis is correct. The Romans 14 text must conform to one of these three propositions. I believe that proposition three is the correct one. In this special series, I will endeavor to offer, from the text itself, proof that justifies this understanding. You be the judge as to whether the burden of proof is met.

None of the gospel preachers with whom I've had personal discussions agree with the first proposition. To be quite honest, most of our friends in the denominational world would not accept proposition one--at least not on the surface. Yet, I do not understand why the "unity in diversity" brethren fail to embrace it with open arms. Some have already succumbed to this line of reasoning: Listen to Rubel Shelly's words spoken at the 1995 Restoration Forum XII at Abilene Christian University (ACU):

"Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do. And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with, even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department. Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. None of us are permitted to insist on our own ways in these matters. It's God we're answerable to, all the way from life to death and everything in between, not each other. That's why Jesus lived and died and then lived again, so that He could be our Master, across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other. So where does that leave you when you criticize a brother? And where does it leave you when you condescend to a sister? I'd say it leaves you looking pretty silly, or worse. Eventually, we're all going to end up kneeling side by side in the place of judgment facing God. Your critical condescending ways aren't going to improve your position there one bit. Cultivate your own relationship with God, but don't impose it on others. You're fortunate if your behavior and your belief are coherent. But if you're not sure, if you notice that you're acting in ways inconsistent with what you believe, some days trying to impose your opinions on others, other days just trying to please them, then you know that you're out of line. If the way you live isn't consistent with what you believe, then it is wrong. So reach out and welcome one another to God's glory. Jesus did it. Now, you do it."

Do you see where brother Shelly's thinking leads? When one is willing to accept anything, based on sincerity, honesty, and zeal, where does it end? Brother Shelly is correct about one thing--we must be careful how we approach brethren with whom we disagree. We love our brethren who are on the other side of this issue. Our conduct must always express, by our words and our behavior, the love we feel for them in our hearts.

I believe that accepting either of the first two propositions indicates a misunderstanding of the Romans 14 text. I intend to follow the text and, along the way, comment concerning the truth contained in the pages of God's word. The most vital point to remember is: Romans 14 MUST AGREE with all other Bible passages. Any conclusion that places it in direct conflict with other passages in the scriptures is a flawed conclusion. It is the Bible's perfect harmony that makes it greater than all the books written by men. Let's remember that as we study.

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things." (14:1) The word "weak," as used in this text, has to do with the weakness of one's understanding of a revealed truth. This person is weak in matters that are, in and of themselves, indifferent. This verse says to have a receptive attitude toward such a one, and not to reject him. Both of us, even though we have some differences, are equal in God's eyes. If the matter about which the weak person has a problem does not lead him to sin, the stronger must accept him.

The NKJV version uses the phrase "doubtful things;" the ASV says "yet not for decision of scruples;" the RSV says "but not for disputes over opinions." Thayer defines the meaning of the clause as "not for the purpose of passing judgment on opinions, as to which one is to be preferred as the more correct." In plain terms, the stronger brother must accept that he cannot settle such questions in the weaker brother's mind--the weaker brother must do that for himself. The stronger brother's conscience cannot be the weaker brother's guide. The reverse is also true. "Doubtful things" cannot include what is clearly a violation of God's revealed law. If a brother is convinced that abortion is not murder, can we still receive him, even though we believe the Bible clearly teaches that it is murder? God's word tells us murder is a work of the flesh, and those who practice such things cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (14:2) This passage identifies the matter being considered in this verse. The well-taught person understands that he may eat all things, with God's blessing. The weaker person, who has a tender conscience, eats only vegetables; he has not reached the same level of understanding as the meat eater. Neither should attempt to force his conclusion on the other. Each is to exercise his liberty with caution, taking care not to weaken the other 's faith.

"Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him." (14:3) It is imperative that both parties exercise tolerance and patience. Paul clearly forbids the "strong" to despise the vegetable eater. Why? Because God has received him! It is vital to understand that this entire chapter's true message is: if God receives both (the stronger and the weaker); each must receive the other. God receives both the meat eater and the one who eats herbs. It makes no difference to God; He gave us the right to choose whether or not to eat meat. If the "strong" rejects the "weak" because he doesn't eat meat, the "strong" becomes unacceptable to God. In this context, these brethren should respect and esteem one another--despite their individual diet differences.

"Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (14:4) All Christians are God's servants. Who among the saints can assume the authority to judge what is acceptable or unacceptable to the Lord? Can I stand in God's place? God is the Master; and He alone decides whether His servants' conduct is right or wrong. God's approval of both people is apparent; "He is able to make them stand." To judge the conduct of God's servant, the judging brother would have to step out of his rightful position. God bases His actions on His standards--not ours. Both are good men who are striving to serve God acceptably, but each has a different conviction about a matter of personal judgment.

Sadly, we often read too much into this verse. Some say it means no man can judge whether another's work is right or wrong but that only God can judge. In the final accounting, this is indeed true. But, we need to examine other passages concerning judgment.

What about John 7:24; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:20; and Acts 20:28-31. God commands us to make some judgments, but not about those things that are our personal opinions or convictions. In matters of liberty, we are not to bind our judgments on others.

"One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." (14:5) Eating meat was not the only problem over which these brethren were divided. There were also problems concerning the importance of days. Some were esteeming certain days to be more important than others. Others treated all days the same. Possibly, some of the Jewish converts still had tender consciences regarding the Sabbath Day and other holy days observed under Moses' Law. Gentile Christians may also have had special days that they had observed. No matter the judgment--they had to be fully convinced in their own minds--to act with conviction and faith. Each person had to make these types of decisions based on what was in his mind--not his brother's. No person, unless he attempted to bind his conviction on others, should be judged negatively, no matter where he stood in the matter of "esteeming certain days."

Paul, speaking by God's inspiration, is not saying that a man can do anything as long as he is "fully convinced in his mind." If one who lives in an adulterous relationship is fully convinced, in his own mind, that his situation is right--does that make it right? Adultery violates God's moral law. Man cannot live in adultery and be pleasing to God--no matter how convicted he is in his own mind! (Matthew 19:1-9; Mark 5:32; Romans 7:1-4; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) This passage tells us the one who keeps certain days must act because of faith and conviction, or his action is wrong. The context confines the teaching to matters of personal judgment--not revealed truth.

"He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." (14:6) One person keeps a certain day because he is convinced that the Lord requires him to do so. The other--in the same manner as the one who keeps special days--accepts all days as being alike. In like manner, the one who eats meats and the one who eats vegetables both eat in faith. And they both give thanks to God. The point is that, in both cases, the individual's heart and motive must be the same. Both the service, and the thanks for the opportunity, are rendered to the Lord. The two unite to give God the glory and praise--even though, with respect to eating meat or esteeming days, they act in different ways.

"For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's." (14:7,8) Whether we live or die, we all belong to God. God will not accept service from one who serves Him selfishly. Our desire must be to satisfy God--not ourselves. Each of us has a personal relationship with God. He owns us and has control over the course of our actions--the right or wrong of those actions as determined by His word. "For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's." {1 Corinthians 6:20}

"For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (14:9) Christ gave His life that we might live. The Lord, by giving His life on Calvary's tree, paid the redemption price for our sins. Not for His own sins, but for ours, He was crucified. His death on Calvary made our salvation possible.

Paul inserted these facts into this discussion to show that we need God--He does not need us! We belong to Him. He has all authority, and we will answer to Him (Matthew 28:18; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Knowing this, how could anyone take it upon himself to judge his brother in matters where God has granted liberty? Because of His death and resurrection, judgment belongs to Christ (Romans 1:4). His death empowered Him to release men from the bondage of death (Hebrews 2:14,15). His resurrection brought hope for life beyond the grave (John 11:25).

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account of himself to God." (14:10-12) As used in this context, the word judge means to condemn. Do we have the right to judge (condemn) one another over matters of conscience, over nonessential matters, or personal opinions? Our brethren will not be judged according to how we feel. All will stand before Christ, and He will properly assess our actions. We need to be patient and long-suffering with one another. Paul quoted from Isaiah 45:23. To be able to face judgment with hope and confidence, we must make this confession before we die, or Christ returns, whichever comes first (Romans 10:9,10; Matthew 10:32,33).

What we must remember is to keep this injunction within the context Paul discussed in Romans 14. Otherwise, how would one judge a false prophet (Matthew 7:15-20). Is it necessary to make judgments in order to identify and warn men who are teaching false doctrine? How could false teachers be "marked" as Paul commanded in Romans 16:17,18? Churches could not withdraw from the disorderly, because someone would have to make the judgment that the disorderly were indeed "walking disorderly" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). If all judgment is forbidden, no one could hope to make a "righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Each individual is a free moral agent. We all make our own decisions regarding whom to follow. Can we see some matters differently and still be united in Christ? In matters of indifference, we can disagree. In matters of doctrine, we must be 100% in agreement with God's word. To reconcile these passages with others, remember that they are speaking about matters of indifference--not matters of faith!

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way." (14:13) We ought also to consider Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13. I cannot insist on exercising my liberty in Christ if it violates my brother's faith. By erecting rules where God has not, we place ourselves in His place. I have no right to admonish or condemn my brother's actions according to my own personal opinions and judgments. Continual fault-finding and splintering into different groups is going to be difficult to explain when we stand before Christ in judgment. Is "having your own way" worth another person's soul? I think not! Over and over in the New Testament, we are told to love one another. According to Jesus, love is to the world a signal of our discipleship (John 13:34,35). Brethren seem to go to one of two extremes--trying to bind personal convictions, and allowing anything and everything for the sake of peace and unity. Both approaches fail to comply with Paul's teaching. If I love my brother, I want him to go to heaven. I will not attempt to pressure him to come around to my way of thinking in matters that make no difference. Many of God's people will be lost because they failed to comply with the wisdom God voiced in this passage.

"I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (14:14) Paul could not have stated more plainly God's instruction regarding the eating of meats. Under Christ's law, nothing is unclean. Later, Paul said: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." {1 Timothy 4:4,5} All things, when used as God intended, are good. The Old Law's distinction between clean and unclean animals was no longer binding on those to whom Paul was writing. (Acts 10:9-16) If a person believed it was wrong to eat certain meats, for him to eat those meats would be a sin because he would be violating his conscience and conviction. My duty toward the one who believes it is wrong for him to eat certain meats is to teach him the truth--but not to persuade him to do what he believes to be wrong. If, after learning the truth, he chooses to change his practice, he must do so believing that God will accept his conduct. He should be convicted by what he--not his brother--believes.

"Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil." (14:15,16) Paul is not simply warning against the danger of hurting someone's feelings. This statement is far more serious and needs to be received with grave respect. Paul is discussing the behavior of one who leads his brother into sin! If I encourage my brother to act in violation of his conscience, I am guilty of harming him. A man's freedom should not be used to lead another brother into sin--and separation from God. How in the world could I think that such an action would demonstrate love for my brother? If he believes that an action is sinful, and he does it, he sins! Christ died for both the weak and the strong. Do not allow what, under different circumstances, would be considered "good" to become "evil." This says I have a duty to be responsible about the way I influence others. Paul also said: "some things are lawful but may not be expedient" (1 Corinthians 6:12). Such conduct would clearly demonstrate selfishness with personal liberty and lack of true love for my brother.

"For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another." (14:17-19) The kingdom is made up of more than eating, or not eating, certain meats. When we try to satisfy our own selfish desires, we act contrary to our purpose in Christ. Serving Christ has nothing to do with either abstaining from or eating meat. Of what then does the kingdom consist?

To act in any other way would violate the nature and spirit of God's kingdom. Those who act according to divine law, and in good conscience before God, are acceptable in His sight and should meet with men's approval. If God approves, how can I insist that others follow my personal judgment? Acting appropriately not only pleases God, but it also has a positive influence on those whom we seek to lead to Christ. We should never push our opinions to the point of causing strife in the Lord's church. Pursue things that lead to peace and harmony. Edify and strengthen your brethren in their service to Him. Let us seek to teach our brothers--not create more brotherhood issues!

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." (14:20,21) Confusion, division, and strife do not edify. Imagine causing a brother to lose his soul over eating meats or keeping days. God's work can surely suffer at the hands of overzealous brethren who push their personal judgments to the point where they cause division and strife. The one who would destroy his brother's soul over a matter of personal conviction is a sorry excuse for a Christian.

Paul mentioned three conditions--stumbling, offence, and weakness--we can cause by insisting on exercising our liberties. Such attitudes hinder the cause of Christ. Paul tells us it is better not to enjoy a liberty, such as eating certain meats, if doing so might weaken a brother's faith. We need to follow the teaching of Christ as stated in Philippians 2:2-5: "let each esteem others better than himself." Anything a Christian does casts a broad shadow. I should be willing to forego, for my brother's sake, any liberty I may have in matters of personal conviction and areas that make no difference to God, if exercising such liberty could weaken my brother's faith. This shows my brother, and my brethren, that I love him and the church; and it sets before Christ a good example of humility.

"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." (14:22,23) Paul instructs his readers to use extreme caution in exercising the liberty we have in Christ. In matters of subjective faith, personal judgment, and opinions, I am to "have it to myself." I must not assert "my rights" to my brother's detriment. One must engage in some deep soul-searching concerning the course he pursues in dealing with these types of matters. I must avoid any action--whether right or wrong in and of itself--if I do not have personal faith and conviction that it is right in God's sight. Without faith--it is sin!

Do not make the sad mistake of confusing this faith with objective faith in the truth revealed in God's word. This is not the subject being discussed in this text. We do much harm when we try to make it a "catch-22" for all our differences. Paul inserted no such "loophole" in the sacred text. To say that he did is wishful thinking on the part of those who seek to promote things for which they have no divine authority.

Now we have examined the text of Romans 14. The first seven verses of chapter 15 contain much the same teaching. Let's revisit the three propositions with which we began this article. I conclude that the text itself contains positive proof that the first two are incorrect.


Go Back to our Main Page