Audio commentary on this verse

Note 1 at Rom. 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 and 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 had dealt with up to this point was circumcision (Rom. 4). He conclusively proved that circumcision, or any other point of the law, was unnecessary for salvation (see notes 1-5 at Rom. 4:9-12, pp. 763-764). The only thing that God requires for the born-again experience is faith in what Jesus Christ did for us (see note 2 at Rom. 4:14, p. 764).

In this chapter, Paul brings up two more points of the law which were a real stumbling block to Jewish Christians. These are the issues of eating meats which the law declared unclean and 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 (v. 20), but he warns them against despising their weak Jewish brethren who could not eat meat or skip the observance of special days in good conscience. 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 Rom. 14:1: Who is the weak brother referred to here? It is the religious Jew who was converted to Christianity. Verse two refers to the weak one as the one who is eating herbs. This is a reference to the Jewish Christian who had not totally realized his freedom from the Old Testament dietary laws.

The Old Testament law forbid Jews from eating certain meats (Lev. 11) and blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; Dt. 12:16,23-25; 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.

This is very interesting that Paul would cite the religious person as the weak brother. Most religious people think 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 Rom. 14:1: Paul is 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 (Rom. 2:5). In dealing with the same subject in the letter to the Galatians, Paul was very uncompromising, saying that they had been bewitched (Gal. 3:1) and that they were fallen from grace if they trusted in circumcision (Gal. 5:2-4). He also said in Galatians 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 is teaching here?

There are some doctrinal points that are non-negotiable and others that are not. When it came 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" (Gal. 1:8).

If these Jewish believers had taught abstinence from meats and observance of special days as essential for salvation, Paul would not have tolerated that. But if these Jewish Christians were professing righteousness with God solely on the work of Christ, yet they had a personal conviction about these 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 (Acts 16:3). Yet when the legalistic Jews tried to pressure Paul about the circumcision of Titus (Gal. 2:3-5), Paul would not bend.

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