Deeper Commentary

ROMANS CHAPTER 14

14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith- Remember that this practical section of Romans from chapters 12 to 16 is based upon the pure theology of Romans 1-8. Abraham, the spiritual father of us all, was not "weak in faith" (Rom. 4:19). The same words are used; and the point is that even those in the church who do not have the faith of Abraham should still be accepted. And the later context of Romans 14 explains more. The 'weak in faith' were those who tried to obey Jewish food laws (:2); and some had been made weak in faith by the insensitive attitudes of others in the church (:21). But for whatever reason, the weak were to be received- in contrast to the attitudes of those who assume that 'fellowship' must be based upon being able to jump certain doctrinal or practical bars. Abraham was weak- but he was strong in that he believed in the work of the Spirit in fulfilment of God's promises to him. This is the point- that the strong are not of themselves strong, they too are weak, but they believe in God's strength. And we are thereby "strong" (Rom. 15:1). His bearing of our weakness on the cross is to be reflected in how we treat the weak; and how we treat them is therefore of critical importance. And that is why our lives are full of interactions with the weak, so that we can reflect to them how the Lord carried us. We note that again in 1 Cor. 8:11, the weak are those who are legalistic- and yet they are the very ones who consider themselves strong by their legalism.

Welcome him- The reason is because both God and the Lord Jesus have received or welcomed him (14:3; 15:7). The 'receiving' in view was presumably towards some who wanted to be in the church but who had been denied. The argument is similar to what had to be used with Peter- God had received the Gentiles, so Peter was to likewise. So perhaps it was the Jewish element who were unwilling to accept Gentiles in Rome. And this must be a principle for us too. We are not to be out of step with the Lord's acceptance of folks. It simply cannot be right to reason that 'They may well be good brethren in Christ, but we can't accept them because... '.

But not so as to just quarrel with him over opinions- Of course, the Jewish legalists would have argued back as many do today: 'These are not matters of opinion, they are fundamental issues, God is a holy God... etc.'. The church was not to be a place of quarrelling. People were to be accepted with the positions they held without seeking to endlessly argue with them- that is surely the idea. And this is how Paul treats the 'weak'. He has more to say about the strong tolerating the weak, than he does about the weak actually changing position. That is notable throughout Romans 14 and 15. The idea is that the church should not be a place of debate but of upbuilding and acceptance of each other where we are.

14:2 One man has faith to eat all things- The faith was surely faith in Christ's cleansing work by which He had ended the Mosaic law and all conception of clean and unclean food.

But he that is weak eats herbs- Vegetarianism was associated with hyper legalistic Judaism, whereby every kind of meat was feared to be not completely bloodless or kosher. But those who had this position were "weak". Yet they were not to be argued with but accepted. This is not to say that Paul has no argument about this issue, for he clearly does elsewhere, as did the Lord Himself. But the point was that endless argument of a casuistic nature was not the way to resolve the issue. And again we have a valuable principle there. Presumably Paul does not engage with the Judaistic argument in the same way as he did in Galatians because he has already argued that justification is by grace and not the works of the law, and perhaps that point was accepted in general terms- whereas in Galatia it was not.

The 'weakness' is defined in :1 as being weak "in faith". Those who still kept the Mosaic food laws were weak in faith in the work of the Lord Jesus, indeed they did not fully understand its nature and dimensions. But they are still described as being in the faith and worthy of acceptance by us because "God has accepted him" (:3). Deficits in faith and understanding do not therefore of themselves preclude God's acceptance of a man. We are also hereby given a window onto understanding what Paul means in Rom. 15:1 "we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves". Our 'strength' is, paradoxically, our faith in the work of the Lord Jesus. So many have given in to the temptation "to please ourselves" by cutting off those who have deficits in their faith and understanding of the Lord's work. This is not at all 'defence of the faith' nor 'love for the truth'; but rather basic selfishness and a refusal to bear the infirmities of those "weak" in understanding. We were weak, and the Lord carried our infirmities and weakness on the cross. Our response is to bear with those who are "weak" compared to our "strength" in understanding. And yet tolerance of the intolerant, patience towards the impatient... is a profound test of our 'strength', and many fail it.

The whole matter is given another nuance when we consider the implications of Rom. 14:23 in this context: "But he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith. And whatever is not of faith is sin". Yet we read in :1-3 that those who are weak in faith should be accepted and are accepted by God. But the person of :23 is "condemned" because he "doubts". I suggest the idea is that if a person 'has faith' although based on misunderstanding, that is acceptable with God; but the person who has no faith, and acts on the basis of secular thinking, is to be condemned. Clearly God sees degrees of faith, and is prepared to accept even misguided faith. But He condemns those who are "not of faith". Another take is to see the word play in the Greek behind "he that doubts [dia-krino] is damned [kata-krino] if he eat". The krino suffix is the word for judgment / condemnation, almost suggesting [and perhaps we could paraphrase as] 'he who damns is damned'. The idea may be that he who condemns another for their position will be condemned. Acceptance of the weak [in our opinion] is therefore critical; because we must reflect to others the Lord's tolerance of us and His bearing of our weakness on the cross. The "weak" are weak in that they are vulnerable. They are weak in their faith in the Lord's work, because they think that works are still necessary. But if you fail to fully accept the total work of the Lord Jesus for you, then you are liable to condemn others.  And so you are vulnerable to condemnation.  This is why in :3 he warns the weak "who abstains [from eating]" not to "pass judgment on the one who eats". God accepts the weak as they are (:3); they are not told specifically to change, but warned that they must not judge those who do not share their positions, and to accept they broke the Jewish food laws as service 'as to the Lord' (:6). But the focus in this passage is largely upon the strong tolerating the weak, and understanding their vulnerabilities. Strength is shown in bearing with the weak (Rom. 15:1); strength is in tolerance of  others and seeking to help them towards the Kingdom. Intolerance, therefore, is not strength but weakness. The strength of the Lord Jesus on the cross was in that He bore our weaknesses, our 'not getting it'. He was crucified in or because of weakness, our weakness, and we also are weak "in Him". Our weakness is dealt with by His strength.

The weak refused to come out of their cultural enclave [of following Jewish food laws and Sabbath keeping] because they failed to realize the dimensions of the Lord's work. But they were to be accepted, as God accepted them. We have a window here into the breadth of God's acceptance of men. Here for all time we see that 'conservative' and 'traditional' are not therefore always by default somehow closer to God. Those positions can often mean being further from Him and His Son. So many who present themselves as 'strong brethren' zealous for 'defending the faith' are not strong at all; they are the weak. The essence is to live the Kingdom life now, and then we will not be eating and drinking (:17).

 14:3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has accepted him- Those with a more Biblically correct position are tempted to "despise" those who 'don't get it'. But all such spiritual elitism is wrong. Paul uses the same word used about how the Pharisee despised the publican (Lk. 18:9)- to demonstrate that such spiritual superiority was in fact a form of the very Pharisaism which they were despising. The legalists were likewise inclined to judge their brothers who ate anything- using the weight of the Mosaic law to condemn. Paul alludes to both groups in :10, where he uses the same Greek words in appealing for brethren not to "judge" and "set at nothing" (s.w. "despise") their brethren- because they all stood before the Lord's judgment seat as sinners.

14:4 Who are you to judge the servant of another?- In :3, a distinction is made between the liberals who "despise" others, and the legalists who "judge" others. The reference here in :4 to not judging may therefore refer specifically to the legalists; or Paul's point may be that effectively, the liberals too were judging their brethren. The idea is that even if we consider the Biblical evidence judges another individual negatively, we are not to pass that judgment. That is not for us to do. This is a subtle but important difference. The Bible may indeed condemn a particular behaviour, but it is not for us to condemn the individual who does it.

To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he shall be made to stand up. For the Lord has power to make him stand- We are all slaves; not the Master. Likewise we are all guests at the Lord's table who should by rights never be there; it is not for us to tell others to leave that table of grace. The 'falling' in view in Romans is stumbling over the rock of Christ and 'falling' into condemnation (Rom. 11:11,22). But Paul believes that God is able to make those who fall stand up, through imputing righteousness to them. For this has been his earlier argument in Romans. It is not for us, therefore, to judge those who fall. For God is seeking to make them stand up, and as the merciful Master, He may well count them as having stood up anyway, despite their fallen state. It is not therefore for us to judge those who fall. It may be that Paul's implication is that God is more likely to uphold His failing servant than we would be; therefore, let's not condemn our brother, because God is more generous-spirited than we are in His judgment.

The first century society was built around the concept of oikonomia, household fellowship. The head of the house was the leader, and all the extended family and slaves had to follow his religion and be obedient to him. For slaves, this was on pain of death. However, the call of Christ was to individuals; in conscious allusion to the oikonomia concept, Paul speaks of how we are the “household-servants” of Christ- not a human master (Rom. 14:4 RVmg.). Individual conversion to a religion was unheard of at the time. Indeed, religion was something for the wealthy to play with, as a hobby.

14:5 One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike- "Esteems" is the same word used in :1 about not having quarrels over opinions, or how one esteems / judges things. The matter was to be left within the mind of each person and not endlessly quarrelled over. Yet Paul is quite clear in Colossians 2 and elsewhere that the position that all days are the same is the right one. The Sabbath and all holy days have been ended by the Lord's work. But clearly he is willing for believers to remain of a different mind; the important thing being not to argue and have discord.

Let each man be fully assured in his own mind- Paul has argued using the same word that Abraham was "fully assured" of salvation by faith through grace, and not by works (Rom. 4:21). This is only one of several allusions to Abraham in this section. But even if a believer cannot get to Abraham's level and still seriously misunderstands- they are to be accepted. This has serious challenges for those who demand a certain level of faith, understanding and practice before extending Christian fellowship.

14:6- see on Acts 18:18.

He that regards the day, regards it to the Lord- "Regards" really means to regard highly. Paul didn't agree that some days were to be more highly regarded than others. But he advises that we respect those who have this wrong view, and consider that they are performing their mistaken service as "to the Lord". This is just how he has reasoned in chapter 13 about respecting local magistrates- service and obedience was to be performed to them 'as unto the Lord', just as slaves were to serve their earthly masters 'as unto the Lord'.

There is no lack of evidence in the NT that the Lord’s sacrifice precluded the need to do these things. And yet Paul and the Council of Jerusalem made concessions to the Jewish brethren who couldn’t bring themselves to accept the Truth in these areas, in the hope that continued practice of these things within the context of the Christian community would make them see for themselves that they were inappropriate. Paul says that Sabbath keeping is a matter of personal conscience (Rom. 14:1-10), even though elsewhere he argues so forcibly that to do this is to return to the weak and beggarly elements. Here, as with the demons issue, there was a clear concession to some degree of human non-acceptance of Divine truth and the implications arising from it. It seems that although the Law was done away by the cross, by the time of 2 Cor. 3:7,11 it could still be spoken of as “that which is being done away” (RVmg.). There was a changeover period allowed, rather than a bald insistence that acceptance of Christ and the meaning of His death must mean that the old Jewish ways were dropped instantly.

And he that eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks- Paul assumes that believers of whatever persuasion will thank God before meals; and this should remain one of our good traditions.

14:7 For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself- Note that it is not living for others which is the immediate point; but living and dying to Jesus (:8). "None of us" is a very generous statement by Paul; he assumes that each of his readership are living and dying not to themselves but to Christ (:8). His positivity is expressed whilst at the very same time facing their immaturity and misunderstandings head on.

14:8 For whether we live, we live to the Lord. Or whether we die, we die to the Lord. Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's- This is exactly the language of Romans 6 concerning baptism. The death of self and living now unto the Lord Jesus is the exact terminology used. Again Paul is positively assuming that the status taken on at baptism is being lived out in practice. He speaks of this level of total dedication to the Lord as a reason why we should not therefore be involved in judging our brethren, or getting involved in endless doctrinal disputes with them.

14:9- see on Acts 17:31.

For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living- There are some passages which appear to teach [misread] that we go on living after death. It has been observed that Rom. 14:8,9 implies that Jesus is our Lord after death as well as in life: “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living”. We are the Lord’s after death, in the same way as Abraham lives unto Him (Lk. 20:38). We are still with Him. He doesn’t forget us when we die, just as I will remember my mother till the day of my death, regardless of when she dies. But if the Lord doesn’t come, I will die, and my memory, my love, my fondness, will perish (for a small moment). But God doesn’t die, His memory doesn’t fade and distort as ours does; images of us don’t come in and out of His mind with greater intensity and insistence at some times than at others; He remembers us constantly and will remember us after our death, right up until when the Lord comes. Because of this, He is the God of Abraham; Abraham is alive in the mind of God, He remembers his faith and his offering of Isaac, just as much as He was aware of it in Abraham’s lifetime. The works of the dead follow them, in the sense that once they finish their labours their works are still in the memory of the Father (Rev. 14:13); for what father would not remember his dead child’s ways and deeds? This is why Rom. 14:8,9 says that Jesus is our Lord after death just as much as He was and is during our lifetimes. Why? Because we are “the Lord’s”, because we were “added to the Lord” through baptism (Acts 2:41,47; 5:14; 11:24), because we are true brothers-in-Christ. From God’s perspective, the dead believers are cheering us on as we run the race to the end; He remembers them as they were, and knows how they would behave if they were alive today, looking down upon us as we run the race (Heb. 12:1). Or in another figure, the blood of the dead believers cries out from under the altar, demanding vengeance on this world: on the Catholic, Protestant, Babylonian, Roman, Nazi, Soviet systems that slew them for their faith (Rev. 6:9). To God, their blood is a voice, just as real as the voice of Abel, which cried out (in a figure) for judgment against Cain (Gen. 4:10). After their death, those who had already died are spoken of as being given “white robes” and being told to rest a bit longer (Rev. 6:11).

The fact Jesus is Lord has vital practical import for us. In Rom. 14:7-9, Paul speaks of the need not to live unto ourselves, but to rather live in a way which is sensitive to the conscience and needs of others. Why? “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living". Because He is our Lord we therefore don’t live for ourselves, but for Christ our Lord and all those in Him. When Paul in 1 Tim. 6 exalts that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, dwelling in light which no man can approach unto, this isn’t just some literary flourish. It is embedded within a context of telling the believers to quit materialism, indeed to flee from its snare.

14:10- see on 2 Cor. 11:2.

But you, why do you judge your brother?- The "you" refers to those legalists who judged the liberals. Those who despised or 'set at nothing' others are surely the liberals despising the conservatives. Hence "You again..." refers to a different group.

Or you again, why do you set at nothing your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God- We read in Jer. 42:2 of a supplication being “accepted”, or ‘to fall down before’ (RVmg.). To fall down before the Lord Jesus is to be accepted of Him. Paul speaks of us all standing before the judgment seat of Christ after first of all casting ourselves down; and this in the context of saying that God is able to make the weak brother stand in His sight (Rom. 14:4 cp. 10,11). We will all be in the position of the weak brother. Don't "set at nought" your brother- because the judgment seat of Christ is coming for you too (Rom. 14:10). We will all be "set at nought" then; that's the implication. We will all have to be made stand by God's grace. We will all be made to stand, i.e. be accepted (Eph. 6:11-13; Col. 4:12)- or at least, Paul is saying, that's how you should look at your brethren, as if they too will be accepted. For if we have no right to condemn our brethren; we must surely assume they will be accepted. In passing, note how Paul warns in this context that we can cause our brother to fall down or stumble (Rom. 14:13). Some at the last day will not be ‘stood up’, they will remain prostrate and then slink away. And why? Because they will have been made to fall by their brethren. Our faith and our community of believers is fragile, more fragile than we may think. In all the pressures of these last days it is so terribly easy to cause each other to stumble, to fall, with the ultimate consequence that they will not be stood up at the judgment. This is the evil of causing offence, stumbling, making another to fall down.

 

14:11 As it is written- Is. 45:23 "Every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess" is quoted by Paul in Rom. 14:11,12 as being specifically concerning our position at the judgment seat. It is therefore fitting to read Is. 45:24,25 as being concerning our thoughts then: "Surely, shall one say, in the Lord (Jesus) have I righteousness and strength... and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed (cp. our earlier reconstruction of the rejected initially arguing with the Lord in anger, and then slinking away in shame). In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory". In God's presence (judgment language: Acts 3:19; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2:19; Jude 24; Rev. 14:10) no flesh will glory, but will glory in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:29). The RV makes all this even more personal: "Only in the Lord, shall one say unto me, have I righteousness and strength" (Is. 45:24 RV). The words of grateful realization will be directed specifically by us to the Lord Himself.

As I live, says the Lord, to Me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God- To God (in Christ). This is parallel to "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. 14:11,12). "Account" is the Greek 'logos'- we will 'logos' ourselves in the sense that we will verbally confess ("every tongue") the innermost essence of our spiritual lives. "Confess", exomo-logeo is related to logos, "account". This will lead us to confess with our tongue that Christ is really our Lord (Phil. 2:11). Confessing our sinfulness will lead us to show our appreciation of His Lordship. That which has been spoken or thought in darkness will then be heard in the light- in that day "there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed" (Lk. 12:2,3). He will confess our righteous acts, and we will confess our sins (Is. 45:23-25 cp. Phil. 2:10; Rom. 14:11). For the wicked, it will be the opposite. They confess their righteous acts, He tells them their sins. And in this way the good and bad deeds of all the responsible will come to the light.

14:12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God- The connection between Rom. 14:12 and Mt. 12:36 ["every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account of it in the day of judgment"] suggests that Paul recognized that we all speak idle words which we will have to give account of at judgment. Therefore, because of our rampant tongue, we will stand in deep need of grace. So therefore, Paul says, you’d better be soft on your brother now, in this life.

“Every knee shall bow to me... every tongue shall confess... so then every one of us shall give account" (Rom. 14:11,12) is an example of where 'all men', 'every man' means 'every one of us the responsible'. “The dead” will be judged (Rev. 11:18)- not everyone who ever died, but the dead who, God counts responsible. "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men" (Tit. 2:11)- certainly not to every human being that has ever lived; but to the "all men" of the new creation. The Lord tasted death "for every man" (Heb. 2:9)- for every one who has a representative part in His sacrifice through baptism.

14:13- see on Mt. 13:22.

Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide- There is to be one thing we judge or decide- that we never cause another to stumble.

Never to put a stumbling block- The "stumblingblock" was used earlier in Romans with regard to the Lord Jesus and His grace being a stone of stumbling for the Jews (9:32,33; 1 Pet. 2:8). He could be made a stumblingblock by Gentile believers insisting that Jewish believers disobey the Mosaic law by eating thinks like pork; if the Jews did so with a bad conscience, they might end up turning away from Him completely The word "stumblingblock" is used in exactly this context in :20,21 and 1 Cor. 8:9. So sensitivity is required in order to not make another stumble. It is not enough to insist that we are right from God's word, and therefore what we demand must be accepted by others. Their weakness of understanding and therefore of conscience must still be taken into account. Pure Biblicism has no place for this kind of thinking, and results in the utter belligerence and insensitivity which has led so many to stumble from the pathway to God's Kingdom.

Or hindrance in the way of a brother- "Hindrance" is skandalon and strictly refers to the twig on a trap, which once triggered opens up the trap into which the animal falls. The Lord is crystal clear in His teaching that those who create such triggers for others shall be cast out at the last day (Mt. 13:41; 18:7; Lk. 17:1). Hence Paul urges that we must soberly decide / judge never to do this to another believer. This needs to be taken far more seriously by those who insist on rejecting others from their communities because of positions on divorce or fellowship. Paul concludes by soberly warning avoidance of those who cause such skandalon (16:17). Walking in the light, loving our brother, means that we have no reason of causing skandalon (1 Jn. 2:10). Love is not causing another to stumble.

14:14 I know, and I am persuaded by the Lord Jesus- Paul really did meditate on every word of his Lord. Thus he says he was persuaded by the Lord Jesus that all foods were clean- this is how he took the Lord's teaching in Mk. 7:19. Those words lived to Paul, they were as the personal persuasion of his Lord, as if Christ was talking to him personally through the Gospel records.

That nothing is unclean of itself- This is another window onto the fact that essentially, sin is committed within the mind. It is the mental attitudes which go along with eating or not eating which are the key issues before God. Because there is nothing unclean of itself.

Save that to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean- Paul's approach could have been: 'The truth is that "nothing is unclean". So those who still think in terms of clean and unclean are wrong. It's their problem- they should accept the truth about this matter and get over it. By believing some things are still unclean they are denying the power of the Lord's sacrifice, how awful...'. But he doesn't. He asks us to accept that these believers really think some things are unclean and so for them, if they eat them, they would be sinning in their conscience. The bald black and white, truth / error scenario doesn't help here; the sensitive Christian must go beyond this in sensitivity to those who are still immature, rather than hitting them with a choice as to whether to submit to Divine truth or not. We can be sure that the Father likewise practices this policy with us all over many areas where we also misunderstand and are genuinely miseducated. It is by our response to others like that as we encounter them in life that we work out our own final standing before Him.

14:15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat- The grief or distress would be in their conscience, being encouraged to do something which they believe is sinful. Paul only uses the same word in Romans to describe his distress for Israel and those still under the Law (Rom. 9:2). This is the grief we should have. We the mature should therefore feel grief for the legalists; and not cause them grief in their conscience.

You walk no longer in love- Blind, bald insistence upon true principle in this case can lead others to stumble; and this nets our condemnation, not our commendation for understanding the theoretical truth about something. The way of love involves sensitivity to others. Recall that Paul has said that there should not be argument about these matters, not receiving these weaker ones to endless disputations (:1). Rather their weaker position must be accepted and lived with in sensitivity. This is a far ranging principle which so many Protestant groups obsessed with 'truth' have seriously failed to grasp.

By what you eat, do not destroy- The emphasis is upon "you". Our example is more powerful than we can imagine. The 'destruction' refers to condemnation at the last day; the Greek word is used in this way elsewhere (Mt. 5:29,30; 9:17 with reference to the new covenant destroying the old bottles of the legalists; 10:28,39; Rom. 2:12). So will God condemn a person for eating pork when they see you eat it, just because it is sinful in their conscience? Even when God sees that there is nothing unclean of itself? Maybe. Perhaps this is the degree to which God is sensitive to human conscience. But we must give due weight to the fact that whether our conscience commends or condemns us, it is not by our conscience that we shall be justified at the last day (1 Cor. 4:4). I would rather think that if a person e.g. eats pork when they feel it is a sin, they will thereby be emboldened to consciously sin in other areas too, and their spiritual lives will fast tumble downhill until they lose faith completely.

The one for whom Christ died- The tragedy of making another stumble is that Christ died for their salvation; you have made His death in vain for them. This is the message of the new wine, Christ's blood, being put into old wineskins; they are destroyed, and the new wine is poured out on the ground wasted. To make Christ's death to be in vain is serious, and can be the basis of our condemnation.

4:16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil- 'Spoken of as evil' is literally 'blasphemed'. The Greek word can be used of bad speaking against a person and not only against God. Paul uses the same word in this very context in 1 Cor. 10:30: "If I eat my food with thankfulness, why is evil spoken of me, for that for which I give thanks?". By allowing continual argument about the food issue, persons and things such as pork meat started to be spoken evil of. This is exactly why Paul wisely commands that those who have these 'weak' positions should be accepted but not argued with (:1).

14:17 For the kingdom of God is not about what we eat and drink- This verse doesn't speak only of the fact that in the future Kingdom of God on earth, we shall not be debating what we eat- and so we shouldn't be now. 15:13 uses the same Greek words to explain that God through the Holy Spirit fills us with "joy and peace". These are internal mental attributes; and we are given them by God through the Spirit / mind which is given to us, as explained in chapter 8. Gal. 5:22 likewise says that the Spirit within us brings forth the fruit of joy and peace. "The Kingdom of God" was the core message of the Lord Jesus, and His teachings and parables about it refer mainly to life lived under the Kingship of God right now. Within that spirit of thinking and living, we do not argue about issues like food. There is a clear connection with the theological section of Romans- the life of the Spirit is all about righteousness (8:10)- the same terms used in this verse. The practical import of that is that we are not going to be mentally bogged down in endless disputes about legal issues. We are therefore not to keep arguing about them (:1), but just accept the weak and immature as they are, by grace.

But about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit- All the law, every possible type of legislation, is comprehended in the one simple law of loving our neighbour (Rom. 13:9). We aren’t free to do, dress or speak just as we like; the law of love binds heavy upon us. The things of God’s Kingdom don’t revolve so much around laws (e.g. about what we should eat and drink) but around “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17). It is attitudes which are important rather than specific acts of obedience.

In Ex. 33:8 Moses asks to see God's glory, and in reply he is told God will proclaim His Name before him, which is done in Ex. 34:5-7 by the declaration of God's righteous attributes. Solomon building a temple "For the name of the Lord, and an house for His Kingdom" (2 Chron. 2:1) suggests that God's Kingdom is another manifestation of His Name, because it will be filled with His attributes. This helps us understand Rom. 14:17: "The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink... but righteousness... joy", i.e. the characteristics of God's Name.

14:18 For he that herein serves Christ is wellpleasing to God- The language is that of sacrifice, which is how God was 'served'; and "wellpleasing" is the word for 'acceptable', used about the acceptability of sacrifice. By patiently accepting the weakness and immaturity of others, and living the Spirit life of joy and peace which is not bogged down in endless arguments over interpretation, we are in fact serving the Lord Jesus; and that service is a sacrifice acceptable to God.

And approved of by men- Taking the higher path of not conflicting over these matters was in any case the way to acceptability with men. Not that this is of itself what we should be seeking; but Paul is addressing the unspoken issue of everyone wanting to be seen by men to be doing the right thing.

14:19 So then let us follow after things which make for peace- The endless disputations about law do not make for peace, neither with God [which is how Paul often uses the idea of peace] nor with men. Again we note that Paul came down on one side of the argument- for he writes that there is nothing unclean in itself. But this point was not to be pushed and made the source of endless argument. For peace between believers is the fruit and intention of the Spirit. And again there is a connection back to the more theoretical section of Romans, where Paul uses the same word in saying that Israel who 'followed after' legalistic righteousness did not attain it (9:30,31).

Lk. 14:32 records the parable of the man with a small army going to meet the General with a far larger army- and then wisely desiring "conditions (lit. 'things') of peace". The man is clearly us, and the General coming with His hosts is evidently the Lord Jesus; we are to come to peace with Him before the final meeting of God and man in judgment. But this Greek phrase 'things of peace' recurs in Rom. 14:19, where Paul speaks of making every effort to live at peace with our brethren, e.g. being sensitive to their scruples about food. Paul clearly understood that our peace with God cannot be unrelated to our peace with our brethren. To make peace with God and His Son as required in Lk. 14:32 must have some practical issue- and practically, it means living at peace with the rest of God's children.

And things whereby we may edify one another- Paul repeats this in 15:2: "Let each of us please his neighbour for his good, to encourage him". "Encourage" is s.w. "edify" or 'build up'. We take our place within the congregation thinking how we can build up the one next to us. And that requires wisdom; we have to choose our issues, losing a few battles to win a war. And arguing over the food issues was not going to build anyone up. Let that one go, just as the Lord let go the issue of folks believing in demons; focus instead on something positive which will really improve or build up our neighbour within the church. This approach of course is at variance with the mindset which insists that because truth has been perceived over one issue, we must keep on and on about that issue, until we either drive our brother out of the church or we split the community.

14:20 Do not overthrow the work of God for the mere sake of food- Paul has shown in :15 that we can destroy a brother by insisting on our particular point, no matter how correct we may be [see note there]. The "work of God" refers to His work to save that individual whom we can cause to stumble. Our own stubbornness and belligerence regarding our own correctness of understanding can actually be working against God's work. And because He allows us freewill, He permits us the power to both stumble and build up our brother. Much depends on us. "The work of God" is specifically faith in the Lord Jesus (Jn. 6:29). We can destroy another's faith in Jesus because of an argument about food. This is how fragile and delicate is the faith of others. And yet we can too easily ride roughshod over the faith of others by our insistence on our correct interpretations. Paul earlier in Romans has argued that God saves without works of men (4:2,6; 9:11). Salvation is His work... and yet we can disallow His work for others by making them stumble. We must take seriously our potential to do this. In no way can we therefore go along with any policy or position which leads to the stumbling of others. And this may have radical implications for us in our social life within the believing community, just as it did for the likes of Paul and Peter in the first century church. Our relationship with the Lord God is personal. Each of us is "the work of God”, and we should therefore respect each other's spiritual individuality, even if it is based on misunderstandings such as misinterpretation of Old Testament passages about food.

All things indeed are clean- Again Paul clearly comes down on one side of the food argument- no food is unclean of itself. And yet his view is that the weak should be admitted to the church but there is to be no disputing about their wrong understandings (:1).

However it is evil for that man who makes another stumble by what he eats- Paul here redefines clean and unclean food in a new covenant context. Eating unclean food is made equal to doing something which makes your legalistic brother stumble. This is what defiles and places us outside God's realm of holiness.

14:21- see on Acts 18:18.

 It is good not to eat meat nor drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble- The 'good' thing here is that spoken of in :16: "So do not let what you regard as good...". What is good or clean meat is to not do anything that causes your brother to stumble. "Or do anything..." takes this whole argument far beyond the immediate context of whether we can eat pork or only kosher chicken. The principles reach to our day. The legalists were convinced that the Bible taught a difference between clean and unclean food- for "the Bible tells me so". But the more mature could see that the Lord's words, and the implications of the Lord's sacrifice, meant that these laws should no longer be kept. Because 'the Bible told them so'. And they were in fact right, as Paul labours by twice stating that there is nothing unclean in itself. But they only won on points. The far wider issue was not causing another to stumble by keeping on about the fact, and accepting weaker brethren to only have "doubtful disputations" with them (:1). The principles are so clearly relevant to all the struggles over interpretation and practice which have riddled all the various denominations of Christendom.

14:22 The faith which you have- Eating previously unclean food was possible by faith in the Lord Jesus and His work. It would seem from how he writes that Paul is especially addressing the more mature element in the church; for in :1 he tells them to accept the weak into the church.

Keep between yourself and God- Our faith and understanding is in a sense very intimate, "before God" (Gk.), in His presence. By endlessly engaging others in the "doubtful disputations" of :1, that faith was no longer private, but was being forced upon others. The idea seems to be that one may eat privately what they wish, but should not eat or drink before a weaker believer in a way which makes him stumble (:21).

Happy is he that has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves- This is the blessedness of a good conscience.

 14:23- see on Col. 2:18.

But he that doubts- Romans 14 and 15 have many allusions back to the earlier, 'doctrinal' part of Romans. Between them, those allusions teach that we are to be as Abraham; and yet we will be accepted if we can't rise up to his standard. Rom. 14:1 exhorts us to "receive the weak in faith"- when we have been told that Abraham was not weak in faith (Rom. 4:19) and we should seek to be like him. But we are to receive those who are in his seed by baptism, but don't make it to his level of personal faith. Rom. 14:5 bids us be fully persuaded- as Abraham was "fully persuaded" (Rom. 4:21). Yet, Rom. 14:23 he who doubts is damned- and Abraham didn't stagger [s.w. Rom. 4:20). Thus ultimately, he must be our example, even if some in the ecclesia will take time to rise up to his standard, and unlike him are "weak in faith".

Is condemned if he eats, because he eats not from faith- This is the opposite case of those who can happily eat whatever on the basis of their faith in the Lord's work; which is how "faith" is used in Romans.

 Yet we read in :1-3 that those who are weak in faith should be accepted and are accepted by God. But the person of :23 is "condemned" because he "doubts". I suggest the idea is that if a person 'has faith' although based on misunderstanding, that is acceptable with God; but the person who has no faith, and acts on the basis of secular thinking, is to be condemned. Clearly God sees degrees of faith, and is prepared to accept even misguided faith. But He condemns those who are "not of faith". Another take is to see the word play in the Greek behind "he that doubts [dia-krino] is damned [kata-krino] if he eat". The krino suffix is the word for judgment / condemnation. The idea may be that he who condemns another for their position will be condemned. Acceptance of the weak [in our opinion] is therefore critical; because we must reflect to others the Lord's tolerance of us and His bearing of our weaknesson the cross.

And whatever is not of faith is sin- "Of faith" is a phrase used earlier by Paul in Romans; and I have argued that the practical section of the letter is full of reference to the theological foundations given in the opening section. "The just shall live by [s.w. "of"] faith" (1:17). If we are not living in justification in Christ, free from the Law, then we are in sin. This is the tough dualism Paul presents in the opening chapters of Romans. If they ate unclean food whilst still thinking they were thereby justified by the Law, then they were in sin- for Paul has proved that legalistic obedience to Law leaves us in sin, and only faith in Christ can get us into a status outside of "sin". The Jews could only be justified by or 'of' faith (3:30; 4:16). Rightness before God is only "of faith" (5:1; 9:30,32). Any other way leaves us "in sin". And yet we are left with a significant logical problem: If indeed justification and salvation are only "of faith" in Christ and not by keeping Mosaic commandments, then why does Paul as it were allow this whole question of obeying Jewish laws to be as it were a matter of personal conscience? I can only conclude that he accepts that God's grace in Christ is such that even those who did not fully 'get it' would still be saved. And that is grace indeed. This also answers the question as to what was to become of the Jewish Christians amongst Paul's readership who didn't fully accept his arguments. Were they thereby condemned? If they sought justification by obedience to Law, then yes- "he that doubts is condemned".  But if they still hankered after obedience to Law and couldn't emotionally accept the full implications of that status- well Paul seems content to allow them some concession to that weakness.