Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Romans 14

The word “eat” characterizes this section. Diet practices differ, and these differences can easily become a basis of disagreement. Paul terms overscrupulous believers as those who are “weak in faith,” meaning that the faith of such persons is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ. They are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this weakness is to “accept” them warmly (v.1) and not to pass judgment on them. Weak Christians must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted.

The specialized use of “faith” (GK 4411) becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context (v.2). One person, obviously strong in faith, feels he can eat anything. Paul would concur that he has this freedom (1 Timothy 4:3–4). Another person, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. The motive for doing so is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice. The omnivorous man is apt to “look down” on the weak brother, an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on the fact that God has accepted this man (v.3), so why should he himself not do so?

To reinforce the rebuke, Paul cites the relationship of a servant to his master (v.4). In ordinary life, it would be unseemly for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the servant’s actions. Thus the strong certainly may enjoy their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain him.

The word “eat” characterizes this section. Diet practices differ, and these differences can easily become a basis of disagreement. Paul terms overscrupulous believers as those who are “weak in faith,” meaning that the faith of such persons is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ. They are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this weakness is to “accept” them warmly (v.1) and not to pass judgment on them. Weak Christians must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted.

The specialized use of “faith” (GK 4411) becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context (v.2). One person, obviously strong in faith, feels he can eat anything. Paul would concur that he has this freedom (1 Timothy 4:3–4). Another person, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. The motive for doing so is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice. The omnivorous man is apt to “look down” on the weak brother, an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on the fact that God has accepted this man (v.3), so why should he himself not do so?

To reinforce the rebuke, Paul cites the relationship of a servant to his master (v.4). In ordinary life, it would be unseemly for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the servant’s actions. Thus the strong certainly may enjoy their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain him.

The word “eat” characterizes this section. Diet practices differ, and these differences can easily become a basis of disagreement. Paul terms overscrupulous believers as those who are “weak in faith,” meaning that the faith of such persons is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ. They are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this weakness is to “accept” them warmly (v.1) and not to pass judgment on them. Weak Christians must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted.

The specialized use of “faith” (GK 4411) becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context (v.2). One person, obviously strong in faith, feels he can eat anything. Paul would concur that he has this freedom (1 Timothy 4:3–4). Another person, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. The motive for doing so is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice. The omnivorous man is apt to “look down” on the weak brother, an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on the fact that God has accepted this man (v.3), so why should he himself not do so?

To reinforce the rebuke, Paul cites the relationship of a servant to his master (v.4). In ordinary life, it would be unseemly for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the servant’s actions. Thus the strong certainly may enjoy their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain him.

The word “eat” characterizes this section. Diet practices differ, and these differences can easily become a basis of disagreement. Paul terms overscrupulous believers as those who are “weak in faith,” meaning that the faith of such persons is not strong enough to enable them to perceive the full liberty they have in Christ. They are plagued by doubt as to whether it is right for them to eat certain foods (cf. v.23). The injunction to those who do not share this weakness is to “accept” them warmly (v.1) and not to pass judgment on them. Weak Christians must not be made to feel inferior or unwanted.

The specialized use of “faith” (GK 4411) becomes clearer when Paul gives it a definite context (v.2). One person, obviously strong in faith, feels he can eat anything. Paul would concur that he has this freedom (1 Timothy 4:3–4). Another person, weak in his faith, confines his diet to vegetables. The motive for doing so is a personal matter, and for that reason Paul does not make it an issue. He is solely concerned with specific practice and the reaction of the strong to this practice. The omnivorous man is apt to “look down” on the weak brother, an attitude that is not conducive to full fellowship. The weak brother may retaliate by condemning the one who has no inhibitions about his food. If so, the latter needs to reflect on the fact that God has accepted this man (v.3), so why should he himself not do so?

To reinforce the rebuke, Paul cites the relationship of a servant to his master (v.4). In ordinary life, it would be unseemly for anyone to attempt to interfere in a case involving the servant’s actions. Thus the strong certainly may enjoy their freedom in Christ. This assurance is grounded not so much on the discretion of the strong as on the power of Christ to sustain him.

Here the recurring phrase is “to the Lord,” indicating that whether one be thought of as “weak” or “strong,” the important thing is that each one conduct his or her life in the consciousness of God’s presence, because God’s approval is more significant than the approval or disapproval of fellow Christians. Eating is still in view, but alongside it Paul places a second topic—the holding of certain days as sacred.

Does this refer to Sabbath observance or to special days for feasting or fasting? The answer is not easily determined. Since the early church in Jerusalem almost certainly observed the Sabbath and did not want to offend nonChristian Jews, and since the Roman church presumably had a good-sized minority of Jews, it is not impossible that Paul has the Sabbath in mind. But the close contextual association with eating suggests that Paul has in mind a special day set apart for observance as a time for feasting or for fasting. The important thing is that one should “be fully convinced in his own mind” as to the rightfulness of his observance. More important still is the certitude of the individuals involved that their motivation is their desire to honor the Lord in what they are doing. It is possible for the observant and the nonobservant to do this, as illustrated by the giving of thanks at mealtime (cf. 1 Timothy 4:5). The one partaking can give thanks for the meat before him, while the one abstaining from meat can give God thanks for his vegetables. The latter should be able to do this without resentment toward his brother who enjoys richer fare.

In vv.7–8 Paul is not expressing a maxim applicable to all people; rather, he is speaking of believers. Christians do not live to themselves because they live to the Lord. This attachment, which is also an obligation, does not cease with death but carries forward into the next life . Paul has already affirmed that death cannot separate Christians from the love of God in Christ (8:38–39; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:9). Their death is to be viewed as an enlarged opportunity to show forth the praises of the Lord. Relationship to him is the key to life on either side of the grave.