Note 1 at Ro 14:1: Paul wrote this epistle to the saints in Rome. There was a big argument between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians over the issue of grace versus works. Paul spent the majority of this letter dealing with the mistaken teaching that Gentiles who became Christians had to keep the Old Testament laws in order to be saved.

The main Old Testament requirement Paul dealt with up to this point was circumcision (Ro 4). He conclusively proved that circumcision, or any other part of the Law, was unnecessary for salvation (see note 1 at Ro 4:9, notes 2-3 at Ro 4:10, note 4 at Ro 4:11, and note 5 at Ro 4:12). The only thing that God requires for the born-again experience is faith in what Jesus Christ did for us (see note 2 at Ro 4:14).

In this chapter, Paul brought up two more points of the Law that were real stumbling blocks to Jewish Christians. The first was the issue of eating meats that the Law declared unclean, and the second was the issue of observing special days such as the Sabbath and the feast days. The Jewish Christians were saying that the Gentile Christians had to keep these laws. The Gentile Christians felt no obligation to old Jewish rituals.

Paul stated that the Gentile Christians were correct doctrinally (Ro 14:20), but he warned them against despising their weak Jewish brethren who could not, in good conscience, eat meat or skip the observance of special days. Therefore, Paul established a principle that those who have the greater revelation of their freedom in Christ have an obligation to try not to display that freedom in a way that offends their weak brethren.

Note 2 at Ro 14:1: Who was the weak brother referred to here? It was the religious Jew who was converted to Christianity. Ro 14:2 refers to the weak one as the one who was eating herbs. This was a reference to the Jewish Christians who had not totally realized their freedom from the Old Testament dietary laws.

The Old Testament Law forbade Jews from eating certain meats (Le 11) and blood (Ge 9:4; Le 3:17, 7:26-27, 17:10-14; De 12:16, 23-25, and 15:23). Because the Jews who were in Rome could not always be certain of what type of meat they were buying or if it had been killed properly to drain the blood, many of them had become vegetarians to avoid any possible contamination.

It is very interesting that Paul cited the religious person as the weak brother. Most religious people think that all their religious convictions make them superior to those who come to Christ without any religious background, but that wasn't Paul's assessment.

There is no bondage like religious bondage. A simple pagan background is easy to overcome in comparison to a heritage of legalistic religion. Paul ought to know; he was the Pharisee of the Pharisees.

Note 3 at Ro 14:1: Paul was saying that we shouldn't be critical of or discriminate against those who are weak in their convictions. This has been interpreted by some as inconsistent with some of Paul's actions.

Right here, in this epistle, Paul had called the legalistic Jewish Christians impenitent and hardhearted (Ro 2:5). In dealing with the same subject in the letter to the Galatians, Paul was very uncompromising, saying that they had been bewitched (Ga 3:1) and that they were fallen from grace if they trusted in circumcision (Ga 5:2-4). He also said, in Ga 2:5, that he didn't give any place to the legalistic Jews who were advocating circumcision for salvation.

How do Paul's actions harmonize with what he was teaching here?

There are some doctrinal points that are nonnegotiable and others that are not. When it comes to the doctrine of grace for salvation, Paul didn't compromise. He even said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Ga 1:8).

If these Jewish believers had taught that abstinence from meats and observance of special days are essential for salvation, Paul would not have tolerated it. However, if these Jewish Christians were professing righteousness with God solely based on the work of Christ yet had a personal conviction about these other things, that was okay.

The thought or the motive behind the action is what must be judged.

Paul didn't object to circumcision; Paul objected to faith in circumcision instead of faith in Christ. He even circumcised Timothy to keep from offending the Jews (Ac 16:3). Yet when the legalistic Jews tried to pressure Paul about the circumcision of Titus (Ga 2:3-5), Paul would not bend.

Likewise, we cannot compromise on the matter of salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). But there should be room for Christians to dwell together yet have different ways of conduct.