Strong Christians must abstain from meat, rather than to cause a weaker brother to stumble, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking.
14:13 … but rather determine this–not to put an obstacle or a stumbling blockin a brother’s way. 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is uncleanin itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it isunclean. 14:15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; 14:17 for the kingdom of God is noteatingand drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 14:18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 14:19 So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building upof one another. 14:20 Do not tear downthe work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 14:21 It is good not to eat meator to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 14:22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Eating and Drinking
The purpose of the colors is to make it easier to see the main issues in the text. The words in pink relate to eating and drinking. It is easy to see that the main topic is eating and drinking.
The word in orange refer to clean and unclean. In the context it refers to clean and unclean food. Earlier in the chapter it was stated that “he who is weak eats vegetables only“. The current verses expand a bit and indicate that the dispute was about both meat and wine (14:21). Some people in that church believed that one should not eat meat because all meat is “unclean”. But Paul indicates that “nothing is unclean in itself” (14:14) and that “all things indeed are clean” (14:20).
As discussed in the article The meaning of koinos in Romans 14, the Greek word koinos, translated as “unclean” in Romans 14, does not refer to the unclean foods of the Old Testament. Koinos is not defined by the Bible. It means “common” and is anything which some people think is not appropriate for the set-apart people of God. In Rome it possibly referred to food offered to idols. As explained in 1 Corinthians, some Christians believed that offering food to idols contaminate the food, and that people are contaminated by eating such food. As is also explained in 1 Corinthians, offering food to idols does not make the food unfit for Christian consumption because idols do not really exist.
Notice the words “thinks”, “own conviction”and “doubts” in the quote above. These words confirm that Romans 14 deals with issues that are not explicitly prescribed in the Bible, but matters of opinion. As stated by verse 1, “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions“. And with respect to “days”, verse 5 indicates “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.”
Rather abstain from meat than to hurt a weaker brother.
Words in blueindicate that strong Christians can “hurt” and “destroy” their weaker brothers (14:15) by eating meat which such weaker brothers think is “unclean” (unholy, contaminated).
“He who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin” (14:23).
Paul is not saying that a person is physically harmed by eating meat. Rather, a person harms himself spiritually by eating something which he considers to be unclean (contaminated). “Sin” (14:23) should be understood generically as anything that harms God’s creation. It would then be possible to argue that the “weak” brother might be tempted to follow the example of a “strong” Christian and eat food that has been offered to idols. But if he eats such food with doubt in his heart (14:23), because he believes that such food has been contaminated by idols, he might feel guilty and suffer spiritually.
In the first verses of the chapter Paul asks the believers not to judge and despise one another because of food. In the current verses Paul goes further and asks the strong Christians not to allow food to become “a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (14:13, cf. v21). The main principle in these verses is that the “strong” (15:1) Christian, that “has faith that he may eat all things” (14:2), must not eat if eating may harm a brother:
“Rather determine this–not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way” (14:13).
“if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love” (14:15).
“Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died” (14:15).
“Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food” (14:20).
“It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, orto do anythingby which your brother stumbles” (14:21).
In other words, the “strong” Christians must abstain from meat, rather than to cause a brother to stumble (14:21). Paul advises the strong Christian, that has believes that one may eat all things, to rather keep this conviction to himself, and not mention it nor display it to the weaker brother (14:22).
It is important to notice that Paul does not require the “weak” brother” to adjust his ways for the benefit of the “strong” Christian. He only requires the “strong” to accommodate the opinions of the weaker brother (14:21-22). This principle is made particularly clear by the first verses of the next chapter;
“We who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves” (15:1)
Lastly, notice that the “kingdom of God is … righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit“.
Romans 14:5 says that each person must decide for himself whether to regard one day above another. This is often interpreted as saying that the Sabbath is optional. This article argues that the verse 5 must be read within its context, and its context is a dispute in the church about eating meat. It is therefore proposed that the days in verse 5 were days on which some Christians thought one should abstain from eating meat. These days may include the Sabbath, but verse 5 does not say that the Sabbath is optional; only that eating meat on the Sabbath is optional.
The first four verses of Romans 14 read that we are allowed to eat all things, but some Christians in Rome, being weak in the faith, believed that Christians should eat vegetables only. Paul instruct mature Christians not to judge such a person. Then verses 5 and 6 continue:
Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another,
another regards every dayalike.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,
and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God;
and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
Romans 14:5 and 6 do not use the word “meat”, but the context of the previous verses implies that verse 6 refers to eating meat.
In the first four verses the focus is on eating meat. Verse 5 shifts the focus to days, but verse 6 shifts the focus back to eating meat. The statements about days are therefore surrounded by arguments about eating meat.
Verse 6 implies three categories of people:
1. He who observes the day. 2. He who eats. 3. He who eats not.
The KJV adds one more people category, between the first and second, namely “He that regardeth not the day”. However, the Pulpit Commentary says of this phrase, ‘omit, as ill-supported, as well as unnecessary’.
The word “alike” in Romans 14:5 has been added by the translators. In the view of some interpreters this word distorts the meaning of the passage, but that word seems to be implied by the alternative, which is to regard “one day above another”.
According to verse 5 it is equally acceptable to regard “one day above another” and to regard “every dayalike”.
The Sabbath is Huge.
Many interpreters believe that Paul includes the weekly Sabbath in the “day” in these verses. From that they conclude that Sabbath observance is optional. The main purpose of this article is to address this matter.
The Sabbath is huge in the Old Testament. The seventh day was sanctified and blessed at creation and included in the Ten Commandments, together with nine other eternal principles, as a Sabbath (day of rest). The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant Sabbath breaking was the sign of Israel’s unfaithfulness, leading to their captivity into Babylon. (See Sabbath in the Law of Moses.)
The Sabbath is huge in the gospels. Christ deliberately sought confrontation with the Jews by healing on the Sabbath. His Sabbath breaking, as viewed by the Pharisees, was one of the main reasons for His crucifixion: “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18, see also 9:16). (See Deliberately breaking the Sabbath.)
The Sabbath was huge in the first years of the church, when the church still existed as a Jewish sect and complied with all Jewish laws, including the Sabbath (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church).
The Sabbath controversy is still huge today. The older protestant (reformed) churches adhere to the Sabbath commandment, but now on the first day of the week (Sunday). But the newer churches view the Sabbath as a ceremonial commandment that has passed away at the Cross.
In contrast, the Sabbath is a non-issue in the New Testament letters. Paul mentioned the Sabbath explicitly only once in his letters, and that in a technical term that refers to the entire system of Jewish holy days. (See Feasts … New Moons … Sabbaths.) There are only three of perhaps four texts in Paul’s writings that might be relevant to the Sabbath. This means that the Sabbath, by itself, was not a matter of controversy in the first century. Either everybody kept the Sabbath, or nobody kept the Sabbath.
Romans 14:5 is one of the few statements by Paul that possibly are relevant to the Sabbath. It is therefore very important to understand what this verse says about the Sabbath.
Romans does not say that the Sabbath is optional.
For the reasons below it is proposed here that Romans 14:5 does not say that the Sabbath is optional:
First, if Romans 14:5 applies to the Sabbath, then Paul contradicted himself.
In Galatians Paul rebukes Christians for observing “days” (Gal. 4:10), but here in Romans he allows each person to decide for himself whether to regard one day above another. In Galatians some Christians were compelling other Christians to comply with the Law of Moses (Gal. 6:12; 2:14). It is therefore quite possible that the “days and months and seasons and years” in Galatians 4:10 are the Old Testament feasts and special days. The “days” therefore might include the Sabbath. If the days in Romans 14:5 also include the Sabbath, then it would be rather inconsistent of Paul to reprimand the Galatians for doing the same thing that he allows the Romans to decide about each man for himself.
Second, Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements.
Therefore it does not deal with the Old Testament Laws.
Nothing is mentioned in Romans 14 that is specifically Jewish.
The main controversy in the chapter is abstinence from meat and wine (14:2, 21). This is not a controversy over the Law of Moses. The Old Testament permits the eating of meat. Leviticus 11 explains the difference between clean and unclean animals. It explains what meat is allowed as food. It does not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does the Old Testament forbid the drinking of wine. Consequently, the strong man who “has faith that he may eat all things” (Rom 14:2) is not asserting his freedom from the Law of Moses.
If Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements, then the days in verse 5 do not relate to the Jewish Laws either.
Third, these were matters of opinion.
The chapter commences with the instruction, “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on hisopinions” (14:1). The current verse indicates that “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind“. Later in the chapter we read that “to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14) and “the faith which you have, have as your own conviction” (14:22). These are confirmations that, what is discussed in this chapter, are matters about which the Bible does not give clear guidance. Therefore the Sabbath could not have been part of the controversy.
Fourth, Paul would not have said each person must decide for himself with respect to something so huge as the Sabbath.
Above it was mentioned how huge the Sabbath was in the Old Testament, in the gospels and in the Early Church. It is not likely that Paul would leave something, as huge as the Sabbath, as optional. It is simply unthinkable to argue that Paul would have said that each person must decide for himself whether any of the Ten Commandments is still relevant.
In the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul opposed the Christians who compelled other Christians to adhere to the law of Moses, Paul has nothing good to say about the law. But in the book which we are currently discussing (Romans) Paul says many positive things about the law. He describes God’s law as “holy, just and good” (7:12). He describes himself as “serving the law of God” (7:25). In the closing verses of Romans 13 he links the second table of the Ten Commandments to the great commandment to love one’s neighbor. He explicitly mentions four of the Ten Commandments, namely adultery, murder, stealing and coveting, and then adds, “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Rom. 13:8-10). After saying these wonderful things about the law, would he then ten verses later describe one of the Ten as optional?
The weekly Sabbath was extremely important to the Jews, and since the early church consisted only of Jews, continuing all Jewish practices, the church at first observed the Sabbath. (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church.) Paul also, during his life as apostle of God, frequently met with the Jews on the Sabbath (Acts 17:2; 18:4). The Sabbath therefore was experienced as important in the early church. For these reasons any change to the Sabbath would have caused a serious controversy. If Paul in Romans 14:5 was advising the church to move away from the Sabbath, he would have said it loudly and clearly. He would not have interjection it as a side issue into a chapter that deals with a dispute over eating meat.
Since we must “abhor (hate) what is evil” (Romans 12:9), we should rather reverse the logic and argue that, when Paul says “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” with respect to days (Romans 14:5), that such days cannot include something as huge as the Sabbath.
Fifth. these were “days” on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded as important.
The entire Romans 14 is about Christians judging each other with respect to eating meat. The statements in verses 5 and 6 that deal with days are surrounded on all sides by arguments about judging one another for eating meat. Paul wrote extremely context dependent. If we read one of his sentences out of context, we are in trouble. To properly understand Paul, we must interpret every sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences. We must therefore understand the statements about days as part of the discussion of eating meat. It is therefore proposed that these were “days” that were regarded as special days as far as eating meat was concerned.
The two contrasts support this conclusion. In verse 2 Paul contrasts the person that eats meat with the one that “eats only vegetables”. Then, in verse 5, he contrasts the man that “esteems one day as better than another” with the man that “esteems all days alike”. In verse 6 he again contrasts the man that eats meat with the one that only eats vegetables. These contrasts,in close proximity, seem to be parallel. This supports the notion that these were days on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded important.
In other words, these verses do not describe four, but only two people groups:
1. The “weak” don’t eat meat on certain days. 2. Mature Christians regard all days alike as far as eating meat is concerned.
The days in Romans 14:5 might have included the Sabbath, but if they did, then they do not speak to whether the Sabbath must be observed, but to how the Sabbath must be observed. More specifically, these verse address the issue of eating meat on the Sabbath.
Lastly, if Romans 14:5 applies to the weekly day of worship, and every person therefore may decide for himself on which day to worship, then the church no longer has a weekly day of worship.
The Jews of the Old Testament and all Christians today have a weekly day of public worship. That seems to be good practice and consistent with the establishment of the seven day cycle as part of the creation. Also, Paul himself “customarily” (Acts 17:2) met with “Jews and Greeks” on the Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 18:4). This does not prove that Paul observed the Sabbath, but the point is that a weekly day of worship was integral to the environment in which Christians found themselves. Since regarding “one day above another” (14:5) is optional (14:6), it is fair to assume that it is the “weak” that still clung to special days. The “strong” (15:1) ”regards every day alike“. If this applies to the weekly day of worship, then the church no longer has a joint weekly day of worship. Would that be Paul’s intention, seeing what confusion it would cause?
Just like verse 1 will be misunderstood unless it is read in the context of a dispute about eating meat, verse 5 will also be misunderstood unless read in the same context. The days in 14:5 cannot be separated from eating meat.
1 Corinthians 8 and 10 is very similar to Romans 14, and therefore explain why the “weak” Christians in Rome did not eat meat. The problem was that new converts to Christianity, based on their experience with idolatry, viewed meat sacrificed to idols as unfit for Christians.
Consider the similarities between 1 Corinthians 8 & 10 and Romans 14:
In both the problem is both meat and what peopledrink(Rom 14:1, 21; 1Co 8:13; 10:31).
In both, “everything” is allowed(Rom 14:14, 20; 1 Cor. 10:23).
In both, the person that eats meat gives thanksto God and eats without guilt (Rom 14:6; 1 Cor. 10:26, 30).
Both refer to the “weak” brother (1Cor 8:7, 9-12; Rom. 14:1) in contrast to the more mature Christian.
In both, Paul warns the person that “has faith” that eating meat can “become a stumbling block to the weak” (1Cor 8:9, 13; Rom. 14:13, 20-21).
In both, Christ’s disciples are urged to consider others before themselves (Rom 15:1, 2; 1 Cor. 10:24, 33). This is, in fact, the main message of Romans 14. Paul summarizes the whole thrust of the passage by these words, “Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him” (Rom. 15:2).
In both, the appeal is to abstainrather than to cause another’s fall (Rom 14:1, 21; 1 Cor. 8:9, 11-13). Paul’s plea is for the more mature Christian to consider his weak brethren before himself.
Meat sacrificed to idols
Corinthians may therefore explain why meat was regarded by some in the church in Rome as “unclean” (koinos) and thus to be avoided. The problem in Corinth was not meat per se, but the association of meat with idol worship. Most of the available meat in the city has been “sacrificed to idols” (8:1; 10:19). The strong “know that there is no such thing as an idol” (8:4), and were able to dine in an idol’s temple (8:10) without misgivings. But some of the Gentiles who had been converted from idolatry were still “weak” (8:9) and bound by superstitious beliefs that meat sacrificed to idols gave idols power over them. They ate meat “as a thing offered to an idol” (8:7).
This made eating meat “a stumbling block to the weak” (1Cor 8:9, 13). The “weak” brother that sees another Christian eating in an idol’s temple might be tempted to do the same (8:10) and he might be ruined thereby (8:11), because for him eating meat is idol worship (8:7). For that reason Paul urged the mature Christian to consider others before himself (1 Cor. 10:24, 33) and to rather abstain from meat than to cause another’s fall (1 Cor. 8:9, 11-13).
The Greek word koinos, translated as “unclean” in Romans 14, does not refer to the unclean foods of the Old Testament. The dispute in the church in Rome over meat was not about unclean food. Koinos is not defined by the Bible. It is anything which some people think is not suitable for the people of God.
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean (koinos G2839) in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean (G2839), to him it is unclean (G2839) (Romans 14:14).
Some Christians in Rome, namely those who were “weak in faith” (Romans 14:1), did not eat meat because they considered meat to be “unclean” (v14, 21).
That Koinos does not refer to the unclean animals (food) of the Old Testament, is indicated by the following:
When referring to the unclean food of the Old Testament, the Greek word akathartos is used for unclean; not koinos.
The LXX (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, also called the Septuagint) uses the word akathartos (meaning impure) for the unclean food of the Old Testament; not koinos.
Below further examples from Acts 10 and 11 are mentioned.
Koinos does not refer to the Old Testament unclean food.
In Mark 7:2 & 5 unwashed hands are described as koinos (G2839).
According to Hebrews 10:29 “the blood of the covenant” is regarded as koinos by some people (G2839) .
Revelation 21:27 describes people, who practice abomination and lying, as koinos (G2839).
Koinos is the opposite of holy.
Koinos is frequently translated as something which we have in common:
Believers in the early church had all things in common (koinos) (Acts 2:44; 4:32).
Paul and Titus shared a common (koinos) faith (Titus 1:4).
Jude 1:3 refers our common (koinos) salvation.
Koinos therefore means common. It can be understood as the opposite of “holy”, which means to be set apart for special use. In 1 Macc. 1:47 it refers to something which is unfit for the holy purpose of sacrifices, and is defiling.
In Acts 10 and 11 koinos is translated as “unholy”.
Koinos is also used in the report of the vision which Peter had:
It is twice recorded that Peter said that he has never eaten anything unholy (koinos) andunclean (akathastos – G169) (Acts 10:14; 11:8).
The response from heaven, to Peter’s objection, does not use the word unclean (akathastos). The voice Peter heard said, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy (koinos)” (Acts 10:15).
Peter later explained, saying “God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy (koinos) or unclean (akathastos)” (Acts 10:28; 11:9).
Notice the following:
Koinos is here always translated as unholy.
Akathastos is translated as unclean.
The message was about people; the Jews considered the Gentiles to be koinos, but the voice from heaven said they are not koinos (unholy).
Peter saw a vision of unclean animals, but the message of this vision was not about the unclean foods of the Old Testament. The message was about people. The vision was about the Gentiles who the Jews considered to be unholy. The Jews did not associate with Gentiles. The voice from heaven instructs the church, via Peter, not to think of Gentiles as unholy. Perhaps the NASB should have used the word “unholy” also in Romans 14:14, rather than “unclean”, seeing that “unholy” is used for the same word (koinos) in Acts.
It should therefore be adequately clear that the word “unclean” in Romans 14:14 does not refer to the animals classified as unclean by the Law of Moses. It means “common” or “unholy”. Koinos is not defined by the Bible. Different people have different views over what may be regarded as koinos. It refers to anything which some people think that God’s people, being set apart for God, should not come in contact with because it will defile them. Many films will fall into this category,
This means that the dispute in the church in Rome was not over meat which was classified as unclean by the Mosaic Law.