Romans 14:1-15:1

Throughout the book of Romans we have been looking at the Righteousness of God which is revealed from faith to faith. Specifically, beginning with chapter 12, we have been looking at how we, as Christians, should live—at how the righteousness of God can become a practical reality in the life of the Christian. 

We began in the first verses of chapter 12 with an appeal for the Christian to dedicate his entire life to God, to be completely transformed to align with the goodness and perfection of God's will, to live a life of deliberate nonconformity to the standards and lifestyle of the world around him. Then in verses 3-8, Paul tells the church to work together as an organism, with no man thinking of himself as more important than everyone else. In the rest of the chapter, he exhorts his readers to live a life of practical and dedicated love for other people, whether those who were easy to love or those who caused conflict and disagreement. In the first half of chapter 13, Paul dealt with our relationship to the government, laying out the general principle that being a Christian does not remove us from the duties and obligations of the world; even as Christians, we have certain responsibilities to other people and we must be careful to fulfill them. In the second half of the chapter, Paul lays out three general principles of the Christian life—we must live with justice, with love, and with an awareness that this life as we know it is not the whole of reality.

Those are the general principles that Paul has laid out in the ethical section of Romans. Now, in chapter 14, Paul is going to bring those principles to bear on a practical issue which the Christian church in the New Testament faced. And while the particular details of this situation are somewhat distant to us today, the general outlines of the case are very familiar to the church in every age, and certainly to the church today.

It's not clear why Paul chose to address this particular issue here. It may be that he was merely aware of how frequently the church faced it and so gave some general advice, but it is equally probable that he was aware that it was an issue the Roman church was facing and so he was responding to help them deal with it.

Verse 1 introduces the primary problem of the passage. How ought we to deal with someone that is 'weak in the faith' or, as they are generally referred to, the weaker brother?

We have several things to note about this weaker brother. First, he is a brother, that is, a Christian. In verse 3, Paul says that God has received this man; verse 4 refers to him as a servant of God, verse 6 says that what he does, he does for the Lord. We are not dealing here with the question of how to deal with those from the outside who are coming into the church, or those within the church who are not truly Christians. We are not dealing with issues of sin that might call a person's salvation into question. This entire passage has to do with interactions between Christians within the church. In chapter 12, Paul talked about how to deal with enemies who create conflict and dissension—but the truth is that friends can sometimes create conflict and dissension. If we are not careful, it can be true of the household of faith that a man's foes are those of his own household.

And the reason there might be a conflict between the weaker brother and the rest of the church has to do with what the weaker brother believes---he is a person who holds different beliefs on religious matters. Paul mentions two things specifically that the weaker brother might believe—two things that Paul had probably seen before and/or knew about coming up as points of conflict at Rome. In verse 2, Paul speaks of the weaker brother eating herbs or vegetables, not as a point of personal preference but as a matter of faith—he is someone who believes it is his duty as a Christian to eat vegetables rather than a normal diet. He is contrasted with the man in the first half of verse 2 who believeth that he may eat a balanced diet. In verse 5, Paul speaks of a difference regarding the observance of certain days. One side—assumably the weaker brother, though this isn't explicitly stated-- “esteemeth” that is, judges, discerns “one day above another.” The weaker brother seems to have had some sort of belief in certain special days and occasions and observances.

These two things point to the idea that the weaker brother was likely a convert from Judaism. The Jews had a very elaborate and complex law regarding what foods could and could not be eaten. The Jewish dietary law did not forbid eating meat, but it did require very specific rules about which meats could be eaten and how they had to be prepared. A Jew living in a Gentile city like Rome would have difficulty in getting meat that he knew met all the qualifications of the law and so might feel it necessary to refrain from eating meat altogether. Moreover, the Jews also had an elaborate series of religious holidays and special occasions that they observed. And we know the Jews, even when they became Christians, continued to carry on many of the Jewish customs. 

However, there were also sects among the Gentiles who believed in strict dietary rules as a means of purifying the soul. Many of the Gentile religions would have also had sacred days and occasions. So some Gentile converts might have also carried these ideas with them when they became Christians.

Regarding the issue of meat, though, there is another thing that might have been at stake. In 1 Corinthians, we have a very similar passage. And there the issue specifically was meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. This was a common thing in Greco-Roman society--for meat to be used in a religious ceremony and then sold in the common market. This would have been an issue both the Jews and the Gentiles struggled with—they didn't want to participate in idolatrous worship; so did that mean they could never eat any meat since they could never be certain that it hadn't been offered to an idol at some point?

We don't know exactly what lay behind the views of the weaker brother, but we do know that he held to them. He was a man who sincerely and passionately held to certain views on specific issues which were markedly different from the views of the church as a whole.

We mentioned first that the weaker brother was a brother. Now we should notice that he was weak, i.e., feeble, sickly, not-strong. But Paul doesn't mean that this man's low protein diet had left him without strong muscles—verse 1, this man is one who is “weak in the faith.” He is in the faith, he is a Christian, but his Christian faith is not strong—or, at least, it has specific spots or areas of weakness in it.

Think of Peter. Peter was one of Jesus' closest disciples throughout the time of his ministry. He had a better opportunity than almost anyone to hear and understand Christ's doctrine. When the day of Pentecost came, he was the spokesman for the newly formed church. In the days that followed, he was one of the leaders of the church. If anyone should have known and understood all the gospel entailed; if there was anybody who should have had the full heart of Christianity, it should have been Peter.

And yet, when the time came for him to witness to Cornelius, God had to bang him over the head with a vision for him to go at all and he seems to have gone somewhat reluctantly at that. And this is what he said to Cornelius: “And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (Acts10:28)

Peter was a Christian, but he either didn't understand or did not have the faith to grasp the reality that God cared for all mankind. The old false Jewish prejudices and the temporary Jewish taboos still had a hold on him. As strong a man as Peter was in many ways, on this issue, his faith was still weak. He was not able to fully take hold onto the truth.

This is an issue many  Jews struggled with. They carried many of their old Jewish ideas into Christianity, not fully understanding the good news of the gospel.

However, this was often true of the Gentiles as well. In 1 Corinthians, in dealing with meat offered to idol, Paul's case is that an idol is really nothing, a non-entity, and therefore food that has been offered to an idol is no different from any other food. However, he adds this comment: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” (1 Corinthians 8:7) Gentiles who had lived their entire life in bondage to the fear of a false god could not always escape that shadow when they became Christians; they could not see food that had been offered as exactly like other food. Perhaps in refusing to eat all meat, they had the feeling that mere meat would be dangerous to them--as if the idol had injected it with a spiritual poison. These people had come to believe in Christ, but their faith was not strong enough to take hold of the reality which the Christian worldview proclaimed.

Now, to the matter of observing special days. I believe there is a value in observing religious holidays and special occasions, but that value is psychological—they are valuable because they remind us and point us back to God. If we think of them as having some value in and of themselves, we have missed the way. Celebrating Christmas does not make you a Christian any more than setting off fireworks on the Fourth of July makes you a citizen. Thinking that you are more spiritual because you put up a cross in your yard for Easter is like thinking your car will be faster if you paint a racing stripe on it. It doesn't seem that the man Paul is describing had reached that point—it doesn't seem as if he thought his observances were meritorious. But he still attached to them an undue importance, as if they were something necessary and essential. 

Paul speaks here of esteeming one day above another. Many commentators have theorized that the issue had to do with the observance of the Sabbath. It makes sense that this would have been a point of controversy in the early church—that the Jewish converts would have differed with the Gentiles about how to observe the Lord's Day or even about what day to observe it on.

It should be noted that Paul doesn't explicitly mention the Sabbath here and so we don't know for sure that it was his mind. And I don't think his statement about regarding every day should be interpreted as meaning we shouldn't observe the Lord's Day, since there is Biblical evidence to the contrary. However, if we look at the New Testament, we do see that many of the Jews had a false view of and regard for the Sabbath.

“And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.” (Luke13:14) Some of the Jews held such regard for the Sabbath they were angered by the idea of God's prophet was doing God's work on the Sabbath. And while this may have just been an excuse to attack Jesus, it was a common enough idea to be a plausible excuse. 

But perhaps even more telling is what Jesus said in response to this sort of viewpoint; two statements Jesus made regarding the Sabbath in response to his critics: “And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27-28) Jesus points out that the sabbath was made for man—perhaps a reference to the fact that man was made on the sixth day, before the Sabbath of the seventh day. But the point is this—the value of the sabbath is not in itself; it is important because of its value to man. Man has a spiritual and even a physical need for it and that is why it exists. In and of itself, it is meaningless. For Jesus to say that He was the Lord of the Sabbath is a clear statement of His own divinity, for who but God would be Lord over what God had made for man? But for the argument, I think the important part is the fact that God is over the Sabbath; we serve God, not the Sabbath, and if our observance of the Lord's Day does not point us back to the Lord, we have given it a false value.

And it could be that the weaker brother was  Jew who had carried this Jewish over-emphasis on the Sabbath into Christianity, to the point that he gave it a value and importance far beyond what is necessary. This a very foreign viewpoint to us—we are more likely to face the opposite problem—but it certainly could have existed in the early church. 

The weaker brothers, seemingly, are those who did not fully understand or had not fully taken hold of the power and reality of Christ and the Christian doctrine. They had faith, but their faith was not strong or complete. And this weakness of faith leads to what we can call scruples or over-conscientiousness. A scruple is defined as “a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.” The weaker brother was someone who had many scruples, had things he believed or felt to be wrong even though they really aren't.

In the church, we have Christians who are strong in the faith, who have a mature grasp of how to live and what to believe. And then into this church comes someone who is weak in the faith, who has different beliefs, and holds to scruples that the rest of the church doesn't—who follows duties and prohibitions which, while not definitively wrong, are seen as unnecessary by the rest of the church. He might be a new Christian, still carrying the baggage of the way he was taught before or a mature Christian who still has specific spots of weakness in his faith and his understanding.

Given this situation, how ought the church to behave? How ought the church to deal with such a person?

We have the answer in two words in verse 1: “Receive ye.” When such a Christian enters the church, the church ought to receive him in, admit him to fellowship, allow him a place. A weaker brother must still be treated as a brother. 

To many people, this sounds like a sign of weakness itself. Was Paul a pushover too scared to stand up to those he disagreed with? Certainly not. “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.” (Galatians1:8) Paul was more than willing to call out false teaching when it mattered. There are ideas that must be kept out of the church; there are professing Christians who should be treated as enemies, even if we love our enemies. But with that said, the reality remains that there are many cases where a difference in belief is not really a matter of spiritual life-or-death. 

There is a danger of compromise in the church, a danger of allowing a desire for unity to lead to giving up our spiritual identity. But there is an equal danger of allowing every single belief, idea, and personal conviction to become test of fellowship. 

The weaker brother—the one whose ideas and convictions might lead us in modern English to call the weirder brother—is still to be welcomed into the church as a brother. “Receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” Robertson translates that literally as “Not for decisions of opinions.” and then adds, 'The "strong" brother is not called upon to settle all the scruples of the "weak" brother.' We might paraphrase it something like this: “Receive the weaker brother into the church and don't immediately starting hitting him with your arguments about why he's wrong.” 

Both sides here were Christians. There is no question regarding that. Neither were rejecting the faith; both were in the faith even if one was strong and the other was weak. We have been talking about the stronger and the weaker brother, but assumably both sides thought of themselves as the stronger brother. And while Paul clearly sides with one side on the matter of food, his point is that we don't have to convince everyone to believe exactly like we do in order to have fellowship.

Paul gives further advice in verse 3: the two sides should not despise or judge each other. There are people in the world who are proud of their physical strength and so look down on and belittle those who they perceive as weaker. That should not be the attitude of those who are strong in faith. Paul did not the stronger brother to be like: “Bro, do you even faith?” He didn't want either side to think of the other as lesser just because they disagreed; he didn't want either to assume the other couldn't be true Christians just because they held to different views on certain things.

G. K. Chesterton said something to this affect: there is nothing wrong with thinking that you're right. Every sane man believes he's right. The problem is when you're so narrow-minded that can't you imagine anyone else holding a different view without being hypocritical or idiotic. For examples of this, see any conversation about politics on social media. 

Even in a case like this, where one side was weak in faith, they were not to be despised—for they did have faith and they were following God with the light that they had. And that fact was more important than their view about what foods to eat. Even in dealing with sinners and enemies, we should avoid an attitude of condescension and disrespect. Even when there comes issues that we must take a stand on even at the risk of division, we should still make that stand with grace and love. But all this is especially urgent when we are dealing with other Christians.

So, in dealing with the weaker brother—or the person we think is the weaker brother—we should receive him, and treat him and his views respectfully.

The last piece of advice Paul gives on this matter is the end of verse 5: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Albert Barnes comments on this: 'The word "be fully persuaded" denotes the highest conviction--not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination.'

As Christians, our guide for life is Christ and Christ's word which we have through the medium of the scripture (something we have in a fuller sense than the Christians of Paul's day, since the Bible then was still in the process of being written.) But the Bible, even in its complete form, does not explicitly deal with every single issue which we face. Therefore, we have this problem—we must make a decision about how we will live, how we will deal with certain situations, how we will incarnate the righteousness of God in our own life. The teaching and belief of other Christians is very important, but in the end, each of us has to make these decisions for ourselves. I think Paul's concern here is this—we shouldn't allow ourselves to give up our convictions because of other people. 

Here we need to make a distinction.

Suppose a teacher has two brothers in his class. On a test, the two boys give exactly the same answers to all the questions, even to getting the same wrong answers. This leaders the teacher to accuse them to cheating; that one of them copied the other's paper during the test.

Now, suppose that the brothers' father came to the teacher and explained that the boys had studied for the test together; he even brings in their notes and shows that they had a common study guide with even some mistakes, which explain their wrong answers. After seeing the evidence, the teachers comes the conclusion that he was wrong and that no cheating occurred. He is convinced. He may be right or wrong, but he has come to a sincere belief based on the evidence.

But, suppose, instead the father came in and told the teacher that he had contacts in the school board and that if the teacher dared to accuse or punish his sons for cheating that he would use his influence to get him fired. And because of that, the teacher withdraws his accusation. I think we realize, in that case, his decision is no longer based on his own beliefs. He still might be right or wrong—it could still be the boys were actually innocent. But the teacher's decision is not based on his own conviction. He is not convinced; he is coerced.

This is very clear in a case like this. But coercion can happen in much more subtle ways. It is not always a case of obvious threats and bribes. The massive corporate influence of other people which we refer to as peer pressure is a subtle (and often unconscious) form of coercion. 

And Paul's concern was that there would be those within the church—whether among the weaker or stronger camp—who be coerced by the beliefs of the other side. That is why this distinction is important—because it is good to be convinced. A wise man is willing to hear new truth and listen to arguments. We should be willing to be convinced. But we must no allow ourselves to be coerced when it comes to matters of faith. We must not give up what we believe or the practices we are certain we ought to practice simply because other people in the church don't agree with them. We may be convinced, but not coerced. Every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind.

This is Paul's advice when dealing with those we disagree with—receive them, treat their views with respect, but do not allow your own faith to be shaken by a difference of opinion.

But why? What is the ground of this advice? What is the context or background that explains Paul's thought here? It is verse 7: “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.”

Think of a key. A key is an entirely meaningless thing on its own. It does nothing and helps know one. It's existence only makes sense when you consider a lock. A key exists solely because of and for the sake of a lock.

“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:11) “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (Ephesians 1:10)

Nothing in this world exists on its own or for itself. Nothing here is complete on its own. Everything exists for the sake of something else. John Doane wrote: “No man is an island, entire of himself.” He was talking about our connection to other people, but it even more true when we consider our relation to God. Trying to understand human life without thinking about God would be like trying to figure out the purpose of a key if you had never seen a lock.

And yes, this isn't a perfect illustration, but I think the point is clear. None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. Our existence in this world and beyond is not a fact which stands alone. It is God and God's plan which calls for and explains our existence. You can ignore this fact and try to live life for other reasons. You can pretend that locks don't exist and chose to use a key for a backscratcher or a screw-driver, but you are wasting it and it will probably never work as well as it would for its intended purpose.

We were created for God. But somebody might object to this. Our original existence came from God and found its explanation in God—but we are no longer in that original creation. Man, as he exists now, is not what God intended him to be; this world, as it exists now, is not what God intended it to be. The first man was clothed in glory; he lived in a perfect world and he communed with God, seemingly face-to-face. It is easy to see how he could be said to live to God. But we live in a world of shame and futility, of blood, sweat, and tears. Adam had access to the tree of life. We live constantly under the shadow of death. Everything about our current existence seems so far removed from God or God's original plan for mankind. Can we still say that, even in this world, we live unto the Lord?

Yes, because of verse 9: “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” God became incarnate and experienced the pain and toil of this world; ultimately, experiencing the termination of life just as all men do in the end. And therefore we live unto the lord and we die unto the Lord. No matter where we are, we are not far from God, because God came and walked within our world. 

Look at Mark 2:18: “And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?” Do you see? When Jesus was on earth, there were other people who were following God (or at least claimed to follow God) who disagreed with Him regarding food and observing religious occasions. Now, obviously the issue there isn't identical to what we're dealing with in Romans—but the general fact is that Jesus, while on earth, did deal with the same kind of problems and issues that we face as we follow Him. He walked where we walk, and if He has walked there, then we can follow Him. Even the most sordid and mundane places in life are under His jurisdiction, for He set up His kingdom in the sordid and mundane places of life.

So this is the general truth—the general backdrop to all Paul says. God, because of the original creation and because of the incarnation, has authority over all we do. In everything we do and everything we are, we belong to Him. And as Christians, we recognize and respond to that universal authority. 

So that fact is the really important thing. The point is that both the stronger and the weaker brother, despite their disagreement, are living for God. They have different practices, but they are practicing for God. They both do (or refrain from doing) what they do because of God. And that reality is more important than the actual details of what they are doing. The fact that both sides gave thanks to God for their food was more vital than the passing question of what food it was they were giving thanks for.

In passing, we should note that the logical corollary is that when we are dealing with such disagreements, we should stop and honestly ask ourselves whether or not our stand is for God—whether we really are doing or not doing what we do for God or for ourselves. In dealing with a similar issue in first Corinthians, Paul gave this advice: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” (1 Corinthians 10:31) If we are not or cannot do something for the glory of God, then it is time to reconsider our actions. But that is not the main point here.

Here the point is this—we live for God and it is God who ultimately shall judge us. That is the final verse of our reading: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” This is a picture which occurs throughout the Bible, a picture of a great judgment when the lifes of all men will be examined.

For instance, we have Ecclesiastes 12:13-14: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”  We should note that Solomon, like Paul, connects these two ideas—the duty of our life is to serve God and God will judge us. You can connect those two facts either way round—you can say that we ought to obey God because God will judge us or you can say that God will judge us because our duty is to serve God. Either way, the two facts interlock—our duty to God now and our account to God then. We live to God and therefore God (and only God) has right or the ability to judge our life.

In verse 4, Paul uses the analogy of a master and a servant. It would be both presumptuous and a little stupid to judge another man's servant. A servant is going to follow the instruction of his master, not of some random stranger or even another servant. He knows his master's instructions and he (and no one else) will receive the praise or blame of his actions. Paul repeats the idea in verse 10, but without the analogy. Why would either the stronger or the weaker brother judge or despise each other? We are all servants of God and it is to him that we will answer.

Barclay said something to the affect that when we stand before God, that is only time we stand alone. In life, we can pass responsibility to other people—for better or for worse, we share with others the praise and blame of our actions. But there, everyone of us shall give account of himself to God. Here, we bear one another's burdens. There, every man shall bear his own burden. Therefore, every man here must make his own decision on questionable matters in light of that future accounting.

This is a somber matter, but there is more to this than mere somberness. In verse 11, Paul quotes from Isaiah. “Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” (Isaiah 45:21-23)

That picture of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing is one we are familiar with, especially from the passage in Philippians which quotes it. But we should understand the importance to Paul's argument—it is the fact that we have just been talking about, that all of us have a duty to and will give an account to God. God is the one to whom all allegiance and obedience is due. As the prophet says in the verses before, there is one God, without rival. If we believed in a pantheon of gods, then our allegiance would have to be split between them. But there is one God, one duty in life, and one judge of life.

But we should also note the other thing God says in Isaiah—not only is there one God, but one Saviour. God calls all people to look unto Him for salvation because He is the only one that can save them.

And this has its echo in Paul's words. This is verse 4—after saying that a servant will stand or fall by the judgment of his own master (and no one else), he goes on: “Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” This repeats the assurance of verse 3 that both the strong and the weak brother, despite their difference, had both been received and accepted by God.

The New Testament talks a lot about mutual exhortation and edification—the church is a place where we help one another to learn and grow closer to God. But we have to keep this in mind—in the end, we are not the ones who will save anyone. We are not the ones who make somebody a Christian or keep them a Christian. God is the only Savior and we are, at best, means of His grace. To often we fall into the thought—usually subconsciously—that our weaker brother cannot be saved without our help. But we come back to Paul's words—it is God who is able to make Him stand, both in this life and in the next. I said before that we stand at the judgment, we stand alone. But that's not quite true. Look at verse 10; whose judgment seat is it? It is the judgment seat of Christ. And what is it Christ does? “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25) The only way anyone—weak or strong—will stand in the judgment is by the intercession of Christ. And if that is true then, it is also true now—in this life, Christ is working for His people (something we talked about back in chapter 8). We cannot straighten out the wrong ideas of everybody in the church; often, it is a bad idea even to try. But God is the one who can make them to stand; who can make anybody to stand if they have faith. God is the one who can help people, despite their own weaknesses and misunderstandings. And sometimes, the best thing we can do is step out of the way and let God do His thing.

Having laid out this foundation, Paul gives two commands in verse 13. First, we have “Let us not therefore judge one another any more.” This is a summary of what Paul has just said. Each of just will be judged by God and therefore we should not judge each other. Robertson says that verse 12 is in the present tense and he translates it: “Let us no longer have the habit of criticizing one another.” Judgment may sometimes be necessary but it should not be a habit.

The first half of verse 13 looks back to the verses before but the second half lays the foundation for the following verses. The second command is: “Let us... judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.” We do not need to render a decision about our brothers, but we should render a decision about our own course of action.

And the decision we should make is to live in such a way that we will not cause our fellow Christian to sin; we should not put in his way a stumbling block or an occasion to fall—the word literally means 'a trap', the sort of a thing a hunter would set up to catch an animal. It is a strange thought to think of a Christian setting up a trap to catch another Christian, but there is the danger that our actions (unintentionally) will have this net affect.

In dealing with these sorts of controversies, our actions must be founded on charity, on love for one another. And in this, Paul is speaking specifically to the stronger brother.

The stronger brother was the one without these unnecessary scruples; the one who had no lingering doubts regarding the eating of meat; the one who fully understood the gospel message. Paul has made it very clear throughout the passage that he held that the stronger brother was in the right. And yet, his exhortation here is primarily to the stronger brother. Because in Christian controversy, being right is not enough.

That sounds counterintuitive. How could being right not be enough? Certainly, it is better to be right than to be wrong. But in this case, the very fact of being right points to something more than itself. Back in when we were going through the opening chapters of Romans, I said that if you judge someone else for being a sinner, then that very fact admits that you know the law—and if you know the law, then you should know better than to judge someone else. And it is somewhat the same here. The stronger brother was stronger because he knew the truth—and the truth he knew should keep him from abusing his strength.

What does all that mean?

To answer that, we have to understand exactly what it was that the brother strong in the faith had strong faith in. Verse 17 forms the central proposition of this argument: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” 

Robertson suggests that righteousness refers to our relationship to God; peace to our relationship with others; and joy to our relationship with ourselves. The Christian is purified before God, is living in peace with his brothers, and has a spring of joy within through the Holy Spirit which is within all Christians. The channels upward, outward, and inward are all clear. 

This is what the kingdom of God is; this is what God's work within this world is aimed at bringing about. “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:20-21) “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)

Jesus made it clear that His kingdom was a spiritual reality, something operating within the spirit of man. It is important to note that it is a 'reality'--it is not just a feeling or an idea. It is God acting on and through the spirit of man. God is at work in the world in other ways, of course—ultimately all things mental, spiritual, and physical are under his control. But the heart of the kingdom—at least during the present age—is the spiritual reign.

Paul goes on in verse 18 to say “he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.” It is righteousness and peace and joy—that is, spiritual matters—that matter in our relationship to God. And this is what does—or at least should—matter to man. If we judge our fellow Christians, it should be on this standard; external things only matter in so far as they point to the spiritual. And even the world—even the world is not usually very impressed by Christians who are very punctilious about the details of religion but who are not really righteous or at peace or have joy. These things—these spiritual matters—are the heart of Christianity.

But here is the reason why all this is important—if the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy—that is, if it is spiritual—then it is not meat and drink. It is not built upon physical objects. Paul put the matter more clearly in 1 Corinthians 8:8: “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” Food—in and of itself--does not make any one better or worse before God.

In verse 14 Paul makes a very strong statement: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.” How could Paul be so certain, so convinced? Some people say it was just his general knowledge of the gospel; some think he had a special revelation or inspiration from God. But I can't help but wonder if it was because he knew of Matthew 15. In this chapter, the Pharisees criticized the disciples for eating with unwashed hands; that is, for eating food that would therefore be considered unclean. And this was Christ's response: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matthew 15:11) Later on, Jesus explained his meaning to his disciples in verses 17-18: “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.” (Interestingly, this interchange is found in both Matthew and Mark—and most scholars agree that one of those two was the first gospel written. In other words, when Paul wrote Romans, probably either Mark or Matthew already existed and was being passed around, meaning Paul almost certainly had read it.)

The point is that man is not made better or worse before God because of what he eats or how he eats. Ceremonial uncleanness does not actually make one unclean before. Most likely, God had given the Jews their rules about cleanliness in order to point them to the reality of spiritual cleanliness. In other words, even under Mosaic law, it was the spiritual reality that was more important than the physical one—just as even under the Mosaic law, faith and obedience were more important than sacrifice. 

We can understand this point better if we look at 1 Corinthians. There Paul dealt with the problem of meat that had been offered to idols. And this is Paul's comment on it: “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4) The mere fact that food had been offered to an idol meant nothing; food is still food. But then, a few chapters laters, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to flee idolatry, to refuse to take part in idolatrous religion. And he gives this reason: “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:20) For a Christian actively to participate in idolatrous religion would be to take a conscious part in that system of false religion which, as Paul shows in Romans 1, is rooted on the rejection of God.

Do you see the point? Eating food that has been sacrificed to an idol means nothing because food is just food. But going into a temple and taking part in the ritual would be wrong—not because the food was somehow evil, but because you are actively taking part in and fellowshipping with something evil. In other words, the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy, and meat or drink only matters when it is in a context that will destroy that righteousness or peace or joy. “There is nothing unclean of itself” does not mean that anybody can do anything they want if they have enough faith; it does mean that the real harm to man does not come from physical objects but from spiritual actions. 

Paul also talked before about observing certain days. I think I mentioned before that some people believe that there was a controversy between the Jews and the Gentiles as to whether the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday or Sunday. But because the day itself doesn't make one spiritual, but rather the act of faith in observing it, then the exact day isn't really that important. William Barclay tells the story of a missionary who was working in some territory where she was far away from any other Europeans and so she sometimes got mixed up about what day it was and was found once holding her Sunday services on a Monday. What really matters is the fact that we set apart a day to worship God—what day it was is only important incidentally.

So here is the proposition we have established. The heart of the kingdom, the heart of Christianity is our relationship with God, with others, and with ourselves—it is spiritual cleanness, not physical cleanness. That is why the Christian doesn't have to avoid certain foods--because food doesn't change our relationship to God. This is why the stronger brother didn't have the taboos and scruples that the weaker brother had—because he had the knowledge of this truth and the faith to take hold of it. The difference between the two was asymmetrical. It wasn't simply that one side ate meat and the other side didn't. It was that there was a fundamental difference in understanding between them. The stronger brother knew and understood something the weaker brother didn't about the nature of the gospel.

And therefore, precisely for this reason, the stronger brother had a responsibility to live in a way that would help his weaker brother. It was precisely because he understood that peace was more important than food that he must “follow after the things which make for peace” even at the expense of food. If eating or not eating food doesn't make you any better before God, then you should not let this matter become a stumbling block between anyone and God.

Because there was a clear danger here. We go back to verse 14, where Paul made his very strong statement that nothing is unclean in and of itself. But then he adds: “To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” He repeats this same idea in verse 23: “And he that doubteth is damned [or condemned] if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

Once upon a time, there was a man who decided to rob his neighbor's apple tree. It wasn't that he needed the apples, for he had an orchard of his own. It was just that he disliked his neighbor and out of sheer spite wanted to rob him of his fruit. And so, in the dead of night, he put on a mask, slipped out of his house, and went to the tree. There, under the cover of darkness, he picked every apple on the tree and carried them home. But when he woke up in the morning, he made a startling discovery. In the darkness, he had gotten turned around and had actually picked the apples from one of his own trees—not his neighbors.

Now, legally, that man had done nothing wrong. He could not be prosecuted by the police for the theft of his own fruit. His neighbor was probably just as happy about the mistake if he knew about it. But we recognize that in the man's soul, the damage he had done to himself was just as great as if he had actually committed the theft. If he had never happened to discover his mistake, he would have lived the rest of his life with his crime on his conscience just as much as if he had really committed it.

In other words, in spiritual or moral matters, our intention, what it is we believe we are doing and the moral quality we believe attaches to that action—that matters more than the material facts of what we do. 

So, if the weaker brother—the one who felt that it was wrong to eat meat—went ahead and ate meat while still believing that it was a sin, it would be a sin to him, even though it was perfectly moral in the abstract. This goes back to what I said before about the difference between being convinced and coerced. If the weaker brother could be convinced, if he could come to have the faith and understanding of the stronger brother, then all would be well. But if he was simply pressured by the example of others into doing something which he himself felt was wrong, then that would be sin. 

So here we have the two sides—the weaker brother to whom eating meat would be a sin because (to put it bluntly) he doesn't know any better. And we have the stronger brother who knows that meat doesn't really matter spiritually speaking. In light of these facts, how ought the stronger brother to behave?

Paul began with this injunction—that we ought not to put a stumbling block or a trap in the way our brother. He ends with the summary: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” In between these two verses, he repeats this same idea in many ways: in verse 15 he states that it would not be walking in love to cause problems for your brother because of your food. “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” I think Paul is intentionally pointing to the contrast between the trivial nature of food and the very serious nature of the soul and its value. In verse 19, Paul says that we must follow after the things which make for peace and which build up one another. Verse 20 says not to destroy the work of God because of meat. Verse 21: “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” This echoes the even stronger statement Paul made in 1 Corinthians 8:12-13: “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” The language of verse 23 is a little confusing, but it seems to mean that the most important things in life are faith before God and a clear conscience; if we have that, it is more important than anything else.

I'll admit, I have trouble bringing this to a practical application. If we should never do anything which other Christians disagree with, then nobody would ever do anything. I don't know that this means that the most conscientious person in the church gets to set all the rules. But it does mean that when we are deciding how to live and what to do as Christians, we have to consider not just our own desires and beliefs, but how our actions will affect other Christians. “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.” (1 Corinthians6:19-20) Because we belong to God, we must live for God and not for ourselves—and one part of that is considering how our actions affect other people. It will take wisdom and God's direction to know exactly what that means in individual situations, but the general truth is clear—the stronger our faith, the more certainly we must live so as not to cause problems for our brother and for the church as a whole.

In verse 16 Paul says, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of.” Albert Barnes gives this explanation for this verse: “Do not so use your Christian liberty as to give occasion for railing and unkind remarks from your brethren, so as to produce contention and strife, and thus to give rise to evil reports among the wicked about the tendency of the Christian religion, as if it were adapted only to promote controversy. How much strife would have been avoided if all Christians had regarded this plain rule.”

The key theme of Romans is the righteousness of God. But that righteousness is not merely an abstraction. It is a practical matter about the way we live our life and how we interact with other people. And the bottom line is that in all we do and every choice we make, we must go back to and try to bring others back to that righteousness because the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.