Romans 14:1–12

Original Meaning

Stop Judging One Another (14:1–3)

WHILE PAUL WANTS both groups in the church to accept each other, he is clearly most concerned about the attitude of the strong. This probably reflects the fact that the strong, mainly Gentile Christians, are the dominant group in the church. Thus, we should not be surprised that he opens his exhortation by implicitly appealing to the strong: “Accept him whose faith is weak.”

If we are to understand the point of this section as a whole, we must recognize that the phrase “whose faith is weak” (lit., “one who is weak with respect to faith”) has a special nuance in this context. “Faith” refers not directly to one’s belief generally but to one’s convictions about what that faith allows him or her to do. The weak in faith are not necessarily lesser Christians than the strong. They are simply those who do not think their faith allows them to do certain things that the strong feel free to do.2 What Paul wants the strong to do is not simply extend grudging tolerance to the weak, but to welcome them (the verb proslambano, used here, means to receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintance3). They should not allow differences over “disputable matters” to interfere with full fellowship in the body of Christ.

Verse 2 identifies one of these “disputable matters”: the eating of meat. To be sure, Paul does not put it just that way here. He distinguishes between those who “eat only vegetables” and those who “eat everything.” But, in light of verse 21, it is clear that the weak in faith are those who eat only vegetables while the strong eat meat as well.

In verse 3, Paul urges both groups to change their attitude toward the other. The strong should stop “looking down on” the weak.4 This translation can be stronger, for the verb Paul uses here (exoutheneo) probably has in this context the nuance “reject with contempt” (see Acts 4:11; 1 Thess. 5:20). But the weak are also at fault. They must stop “condemning” (krino) the strong believers. Krino means to pronounce doom on a person, to deny someone one’s right to salvation. Paul will later argue that only God has the right to make such a determination. But here he points to a more specific issue: God has accepted this strong believer. How can we reject from our fellowship one whom God has accepted? Here is the theological bottom line in Paul’s critique of judgmentalism in the church.

Bridging Contexts

THE WEAK IN ROME. As we will see below, Paul’s plea for tolerance in 14:1–15:13 has sometimes been wrongly applied, primarily because of a failure to understand just what kind of issue he is discussing in these verses. This text affords a classic example of a passage in which the author and readers share intimate knowledge of a situation we do not have access to. The Roman Christians know what the problem is, and so does Paul. Thus, he does not have to spell it out to them, and we have to reconstruct the issue on the basis of the hints Paul gives in this text along with what we know of the first-century cultural and religious context. As one might expect when the evidence is not straightforward and explicit, scholars come up with different reconstructions of the exact situation. Six deserve mention.

(1) The weak are Gentile Christians who abstain from meat (and perhaps wine), especially on certain fast days, under the influence of pagan religious traditions.10

(2) The weak are Christians generally who are devoted, for whatever reason, to an ascetic lifestyle.11

(3) The weak are mainly Jewish Christians who think they need to observe certain rituals of the Mosaic law in order to be justified before God.12

(4) The weak are mainly Jewish Christians who, under the influence of widespread religious trends in the first century, are expressing their devotion to God by following an ascetic lifestyle (see Col. 2:16–23).13

(5) The weak are Jewish Christians who, like some of the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 8–10), refuse to eat meat because it may have been tainted with idolatry in the marketplace.14

(6) The weak are mainly Jewish Christians who do not eat certain food and observe certain days (and perhaps do not drink wine) out of loyalty to the Mosaic law.15

Four specific arguments combine to make the last of these alternatives the most likely. (1) The dispute Paul refers to has its roots in the tension between Jews and Gentiles in Rome. Why else would Paul conclude his exhortation with a series of Old Testament quotations celebrating the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God (15:8–12)? Moreover, Paul’s use of the word “common” (koinos) in 14:14 to refer to what the NIV calls “unclean” food also suggests a Jewish basis for the position of the weak. This word was widely applied to food forbidden to God’s people by the Mosaic law (cf. Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14).

(2) Paul’s exhortation to strong believers to accept the weak makes clear that the weak are not holding a view Paul thinks is antithetical to the gospel. As we know from his other letters (e.g., Galatians), Paul can be harsh toward Christians who hold views contrary to the gospel of God. If the weak thought their obedience to the law was necessary for their salvation (view 3), Paul would do more than simply urge the strong to accept them into Christian fellowship.

(3) Paul never suggests that the meat the weak believers refuse to eat has been sacrificed to idols. We do not have sufficient basis to read the situation of 1 Corinthians 8–10 into Romans. Moreover, had that been the problem, we cannot explain why the observance of days is also an issue.

(4) On a positive note, the practices Paul attributes to the weak in this passage are easily explained against the background of Jewish attempts to keep the Mosaic law in a Gentile environment. The observance of holy days, including the major festivals and the Sabbath, were important Jewish identity markers in the first-century world. The Mosaic law did not, of course, demand abstinence from meat or wine. But scrupulous Jews often avoided eating meat if they could not be sure it had been prepared in a kosher manner. They would similarly abstain from wine out of a concern that it had been tainted by the pagan practice of offering wine as a libation to the gods.

The classic biblical example of such care to avoid pagan contamination is Daniel, who “resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Dan. 1:8; see also 10:3; Tobit 1:10–12; Judith 12:2, 19; Add. Esth. 4:17; Joseph and Aseneth 14). It would not be surprising if many, perhaps most, Jews in Rome, surrounded by pagans, had decided to adopt similar practices in order to maintain their purity before the Lord.

If this background makes this scenario plausible, the whole tenor of Romans confirms this direction of interpretation. For the letter is preoccupied from the beginning with the question of the Mosaic law and the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. In other words, the theology developed in Romans 1–11 perfectly applies to a situation in which Christians in Rome are divided over the continuing relevance of certain provisions of, or drawn from, the Mosaic law. This does not, of course, prove that this is the issue, but the “fit” between theology and practical exhortation does support this scenario.

If, then, the situation in Rome is as we have suggested, Paul is addressing an issue that we sometimes call a matter of the adiaphora (“things indifferent”). The Scripture commands us to do certain things (e.g., to worship God), and it forbids us from doing certain other things (e.g., to commit adultery). But many other things are neither commanded nor prohibited—God’s people have the freedom to do them or not to do them. Should we use the King James Version of the Bible or the New International Version? Should we sing in church to an organ or with a guitar? The Bible does not say (though some Christians may think it does!).

As Paul makes clear elsewhere in his letters and in the book of Acts, he believes that Jewish Christians have the freedom to continue to observe the Mosaic law if they want to. But they must not think it is necessary for their salvation, and they cannot impose it on Gentile believers (Galatians). He also insists that believers have no obligation to continue obeying the law of Moses (see 6:14, 15; 7:4, 6). Therefore, observing the Sabbath and other special days and avoiding meat and wine to maintain ritual purity fall into the category of the adiaphora.

In other words, if Christians from a Jewish background want to keep the Sabbath and abstain from meat and wine, that is fine. But if other Christians neglect the Sabbath and eat meat and drink wine, that is fine too. Both positions are “acceptable” Christian positions, and believers who hold each position should not condemn the others.

Nevertheless—and this is a vital point—we cannot extend the tolerance Paul demands here to all issues. As we have noted, he takes a different approach toward people who are violating a clear teaching of the gospel. Such people are not to be tolerated but corrected, and, if they do not repent, are to be cut off from the life of the church (see 1 Cor. 5). We must, then, be careful to apply the tolerance of Romans 14:1–15:13 to issues similar to the one Paul treats here.

Contemporary Significance

THE SABBATH COMMAND. As we have just hinted, Paul’s teaching in this part of Romans has great significance for the practice of tolerance. Who and what views do we tolerate? Why? It is perhaps better to deal with this broader issue after we have seen more of Paul’s argument on this matter (see the Contemporary Significance sections on 14:13–23 and 15:1–6). In the present section we will look at a minor matter in the text but one that continues to divide and perplex believers: the Sabbath.

In the history of Protestant Christianity especially, Sabbath observance has been a contentious issue. There are both theological and cultural reasons for the controversy. Our culture, until just recently, was deeply influenced by the Christian tradition, associated especially with the Puritans, of viewing Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath” and therefore as a day of rest. When I was growing up, few stores were open on Sunday. Until fairly recently in the state of Illinois it was illegal for car dealers to be open on Sunday. And many Christians, though not always clear why they were doing so, were convinced that Sunday was a day on which normal activities should be suspended. It was not a day for car-washing or lawn-mowing or even for sports, but a day to spend in physical rest, spiritual refreshment, and worship.

All this probably sounds foreign to many younger believers, who cannot imagine a Sunday with malls closed or deserted baseball diamonds and soccer fields. Even worship is no longer a Sunday matter, for many attend one of the growing number of churches with Saturday night worship services. Attitudes toward Sunday have changed dramatically over the last twenty years. But whether the changes are good or ill has to be decided theologically.

Theologically, the Sabbath command became a lightning rod for the larger issue of the believer’s relationship to the Old Testament law. In the Ten Commandments God commands his people to worship him and to rest on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). A strong tradition within evangelical Protestantism, rooted in the teaching of Calvin especially and mediated to the modern church through the influence of the Puritans, holds that the Ten Commandments summarize God’s eternal moral law. Must we then obey the Sabbath command? If so, how?

Seventh Day Adventists claim to be the only consistent Christians when it comes to Sabbath observance. They believe, with many other Christians, that the Decalogue contains God’s eternal moral law. That being the case, worship and rest on the Sabbath is as much as a requirement for believers as is refraining from murder and stealing. God made “the seventh day” the Sabbath—our Saturday. We have no right to change the day God himself established.16

Many who view the Ten Commandments as having continuing authority for the church think, however, that the New Testament implies a change in the Sabbath command. The early Christians met on the “first day of the week” to break bread (Acts 20:7) and to take offerings for charity (1 Cor. 16:2). John received his famous vision on “the Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). Most interpreters think these texts suggest that what we can document from the post-New Testament church was already happening in the New Testament church: In honor of the resurrection, the day of worship was moved from Saturday to Sunday. Jesus, after all, claimed to be “Lord … of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28), implying that he had the authority, as the fulfiller of the law, to change the Sabbath command.

But to what extent did he change it? Did he remove the obligation to cease from work on the Sabbath? The evidence here is not clear. To be sure, he and his disciples sometimes did things on the Sabbath that violated the Jewish interpretation of that day (Mark 2:23–28 and par.; 3:1–6 and par.; Luke 14:10–17; John 5). But none is clearly a violation of the Old Testament Sabbath rules.17 More pertinent, perhaps, is Hebrews 4:1–11, which claims that “there remains … a Sabbath-rest for the people of God” (4:9). But the author of this book appears to interpret that “rest” metaphorically, applying it to the salvific experience of God’s people (see 4:10–11).18

The uncertain nature of this evidence leaves in doubt the continuing applicability of the Sabbath command’s demand for “rest.” But it is at this point that Romans 14:5, along with Colossians 2:16, may help. In the Colossians text, Paul urges believers not to succumb to false teachers. He tells them, “Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Paul here appears to put Sabbath observance in the category of the adiaphora, a practice neither commanded nor forbidden.

The same seems to be true of Romans 14:5. To be sure, Paul does not mention the Sabbath explicitly. But debates about observance of special days, within a Jewish context, almost certainly included the Sabbath, the most prominent of Jewish holy days.19 I think these specific texts, along with the attitude toward the Sabbath command as a whole in the New Testament, show that observance of the Sabbath is no longer incumbent on believers. This fits with my understanding of the authority of the law as a whole in the new covenant era.

What are the practical implications of this view? (1) Christians are not required to “rest” on Sunday. Taking a job that requires one to work on Sunday, washing one’s car on Sunday, playing basketball on Sunday—none is prohibited to us. Yet Christians also have the liberty to rest on Sunday if they choose. I think that such a rest, while not mandated, is physically and spiritually wise. I do not usually do any of my usual work on Sunday—I do not prepare lectures, grade papers, or write books. Yes, emergencies sometimes arise when I have to work, and I often teach and preach in a church. But I find that establishing a rule for myself of not working on Sunday is intensely liberating. I feel no guilt about not being in my study, and I am certain that the break on Sunday enables me to be far more efficient on the other six days of the week. Many theologians speculate that the essence of the Sabbath command is precisely this idea of a break from regular activities to rest and worship God.20 The exact day may not finally matter all that much.

(2) This brings us to a second, in my mind more difficult, matter: the requirement of worship on the Sabbath. One might think that consistency would demand that worship be put in the same category as rest: Regular worship is required, but the day is optional. This may be right. But I hesitate because of the explicit New Testament references to the “the first day of the week” and to the “Lord’s Day” noted above. Sunday worship is not mandated in the New Testament, but it does seem to be a pattern (although, admittedly, one attested in only a few texts). For this reason, I am not so sure we should jettison Sunday as the church’s regular day of worship.

(3) This, in turn, brings up several other implications. (a) We should take a hard, theological look at the trend to establish Saturday evening worship services. Most churches adopt the Saturday worship for the sake of convenience: perhaps to relieve congestion on Sunday morning or to attract people who might not get up for Sunday morning. But do they establish solid biblical and theological justification for it? Do they deal seriously with what seems to be the pattern of New Testament worship timing? Perhaps a case can be made that anytime after sundown on Saturday counts as the Sabbath day, by Jewish reckoning. But few churches make this argument, nor would it work for most of the year in many northern hemisphere latitudes anyway.

(b) While believers are not required to rest on Sunday, they are required to attend worship—which is usually on Sunday. Some professions, to be sure, make consistent Sunday morning worship impossible—medicine, fire protection, law, athletics. But the vast majority of Christians have a clear choice to make, a choice that will reflect the priority we give to worship. My own children, following my example/law (I am not quite sure which category it belongs in!) have sometimes refused lucrative jobs because they would force them to work often on Sunday.

A friend of my third son, Lukas, had the opportunity to make his priorities clear to the whole community. In 1998, just after Tiger Woods rocketed to fame after his first Masters Tournament win, he came to our area to play golf with Michael Jordan. My son’s friend was asked to caddy for them. He refused because it would have forced him to miss church. Most people in our area were simply flabbergasted; they could not even imagine someone making such a choice. But what a witness it was to the value this young man placed on worship!

(c) As our culture has changed, we believers find ourselves pressured at yet another point to conform—to treat Sunday as a day to sleep in, to go to brunch, to read the newspaper, to take the kids to soccer games, and so on. At the least, we must hold high the primacy of worship as what, for us, Sunday is first of all for.

Original Meaning

Slaves of the Lord Jesus (14:4–9)

IN VERSES 4–9, Paul elaborates this fundamental principle. Paul singles out a specific person (the “you” in Greek is singular [sy]). He does this because he reverts again to the diatribe style he has used so effectively in Romans (see comments on 2:1–11). This “you” may include both weak and strong,5 but is more likely confined to the weak.6 “Who do you think you are?” is basically what Paul is asking this weak believer. In condemning the strong believer, the weak believer is, in effect, claiming to be that believer’s master. But the Christian has only one “master”: the Lord Jesus Christ.

The rhetorical quality of Paul’s argument is not evident in English, because English obscures the fact that the Greek word for both “master” and “Lord” is the same: kyrios. This word is central to the argument of verses 4–9, and it is not always clear to whom Paul refers. But the NIV is correct, I think, to take the first occurrence in verse 4 to denote a “master” in general and the second in a theological sense: the Lord, probably Christ.7 “Stand” (histemi) and “fall” (pipto) may be paraphrased to mean “stand in favor with” and “fall out of favor with.”8

Paul now cites a second “disputable matter” (cf. v. 1) creating tension between the strong and the weak: judging certain days to be “more sacred” than other days.9 What these days are is one of the key points of dispute in this passage (see below), but reference is probably to Jewish holy days, including various festivals and the Sabbath. In any case, Paul wants every believer to be firmly convinced (plerophoreo; cf. the use of this same verb in 4:21) in his or her own mind.

With verse 6 Paul resumes the theological basis for his rebuke of the judgmental Roman believers that he began in verse 4. He first refers to the weak believer, who regards certain days “as special” (there is nothing corresponding in the Greek, but this must be the sense), then to the strong believer, who eats meat (cf. v. 2), and finally again to the weak believer, who abstains from eating meat. Each, Paul argues, acts out of sincere regard for God and a desire to please him. That is why it is wrong for them to be condemning each other. They may differ over specific practices, but each group needs to recognize the sincerity of the other.

The Christian, Paul has suggested, is a slave who owes allegiance to a master (vv. 4, 6). In verses 7–9 he underscores and elaborates this relationship. No Christian acts (or should act) out of regard to himself or herself alone. We always have to take into account not just our own interests, but the interests of the one who died for us and returned to life so that he might be our Lord (v. 9). In whatever state we find ourselves, therefore—whether in life or in death—Christ, our Lord, owns us and expects us to act in obedience to him. As Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 5:15, “he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” The Roman Christians are presuming to dictate to one another what their behavior should be—what they should eat, or not eat, and what days to observe. But only the Lord has that right.