Bible Commentaries
Romans 14

Verses 1-23

XIV 1-XV 13 Exhortations to the Weak and the Strong in the Church of Rome— Peace and unity in the church of Rome are the subject of this long exhortation. But this time, as distinct from the previous exhortations to the same effect, 12:3-8, 9-16, 17-21; 13:8-10, it is peace and unity in one particular point. St Paul has heard of Christians at Rome who abstain from meat, 14:2, and Wine, 14:21, and have fixed days set apart for special religious purposes, 14:5. On the other hand he knows that there are others who regard these formalities as having been made unnecessary by the Christian doctrine of salvation, and who therefore judge those who continue to set a great value on their observance as weak in the faith. The Apostle fearing that their differences of opinion might grow into serious disturbances of peace and harmony uses the ppportunity of exhorting to unity and mutual tolerance. For the want of exact modern equivalents, the two parties may conveniently be called the Weak and the Strong. On the whole subject cf. M. Rauer, Die Schwachen in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen, BS 21 ( 1929). Connexion. Most commentators see the connexion in the contrast with 13:13. It is equally possible that the Apostle left this exhortation last on purpose. The general exhortations in 12:1-13:13 are well suited to prepare the way for the discussion of what was evidently a delicate problem. Plan. The whole section can be divided into three parts: (1) 14:1-12, avoid mutual criticism; (2) 14:1323, avoid giving scandal; (3) 15:1-13, avoid selfishness. Difficulties. The general outlines of the situation which the Apostle has in mind are clear. But as soon as attempts are made to reconstruct the argument in detail commentators begin to differ widely. The main controversies centre round these questions: (1) Who were the Weak? (2) What is meant by the observance of special days? (3) Why does St Paul not treat the Weak in Rom in the same way as the Weak in Gal?

1. Who were the Weak of Romans 14:1-; Romans 15:13? Six answers have been given: (a) Converts from the Synagogue who in these matters continued to live according to the Mosaic Law and Jewish custom, cf. Colossians 2:16. (b) Converts from Essenism, a Jewish religious body with very severe rules of abstinence, cf. Philo, De vita contemplativa ed. Mangey II477. (c) Another type of the Weak in 1 Cor 8, who refused to eat meat that had been offered to idols. The Weak of Rom then are understood to have gone a step further and abstained from meat and wine altogether to avoid every possibility of taking meat of this kind, cf. Cornely 692 ff. (d) Converts from some form of OrphicPythagorean Mystery-religion, in which these practices were in vogue at the time; cf. Lietzmann 114 f. (e) Christian ascetics, who for various reasons regarded such mortification as the sign of a good Christian life; cf. Lagrange 335, (f) Christians of ’excessive scrupulousness’. The complete abstinence from meat and wine, and the observance of special days are in this case no more than illustrations; cf. SH 401 f. Each of these six answers assumes a particular type of religious practice at Rome in the days of St Paul. But none of them can be shown by independent historical evidence to have existed in the Christian community of Rome in those days, and it is easy to raise objections against each of them. (a) Complete abstinence from meat and wine was never enjoined in the synagogue. (b) The existence of Essene communities outside Palestine cannot be proved, Schürer II ( 1907) 656; nor can abstinence from meat and wine be shown to be characteristic of Essenism, Schürer II 664. (c) The situation in 1 Cor 8 is clear and Paul’s exhortation essentially the same as in Romans 14:1-; Romans 15:13. But all this does not explain the ’exaggeration’ in Rome and the observance of special days. (d) Orphic-Pythaigorean influence is possible but difficult to prove in this particular case. (e) Strong ascetical tendencies no doubt existed in early Christianity, cf.Acts 4:32-; Acts 5:11; 1 Timothy 5:23; Colossians 2:16; Didache8; cf. also the later Encratites, Irenaeus, Adv. haer.28; and the Ebionites, Epiphanius, Haer. 30:15, 3. But the question is, whence this unusual type of asceticism among the Christians of Rome? (f) Scrupulousness is a common spiritual disease, the existence of which at Rome as anywhere else in the times of St Paul can readily be admitted. But can complete abstinence from meat and wine and the observance of special days be reasonably regarded as typical examples of what we call scrupulousness? They may have been such under the circumstances, but then they are more than mere illustrations, cf. 1 Cor 8. Further, the concessions which St Paul makes to the Weak of Rome cannot be applied to the scrupulous in general. In view of so much uncertainty most modern commentators refuse to decide in favour of one of the above six explanations. Instead they prefer to speak vaguely of a combination of various influences and tendencies known to have existed at the time. Briefly, as far as we know, Jewish as well as pagan current tendencies, pre-Christian as well as Christian thought, may have contributed to the complicated situation presupposed in Romans 14:1-; Romans 15:13; cf. SH 399-403; Lagrange 335-40; Boylan 211 f.

2. What is meant by the observance of special days in 14:1-15:13? The only reference to this practice of the Weak Isaiah 14:5. But it may be implied in 14:21c. St Paul’s description is so vague that one can only discuss the possibilities. (a) The special days observed by the Weak may have been holy days = feast-days. In this case the holy days of the OT calendar (Sabbath, New Moon, etc.) would seem to be meant, cf.Galatians 4:10 f.; Colossians 2:16 f. This opinion is naturally held by all who regard the Weak as converts from the Synagogue, cf. Cornely 702. But if they were holy days, one can also think of Christian holy days, e.g. Sunday Apoc 1:10. (b) The special days of the Weak more probably were fast days. This explanation is based on the context in which abstinence is the predominant feature. So Lagrange, Boylan. In this case the practice of the Weak may be compared with the early Christian custom of fasting Wednesdays and Fridays, Didache8, or later every Wednesday and Saturday in Rome. The two extreme possibilities which the text theoretically allows, that the Weak fasted every day, and the Strong never, can safely be neglected.

3. Why does St Paul not treat the Weak in Rom in the same harsh way as the Weak in Gal? The difference in St Paul’s attitude to very much the same uestion is beyond any doubt. In Gal the Weak stand early condemned as being in the wrong; in Rom Paul pleads for sympathy and understanding. The difference cannot be explained as a change in the Apostle’s doctrine, because the doctrine of justification by faith and not by observance of law is essential to his teaching and to Rom in particular, cf. 3:21; 4:3 f.; 5:1. The true explanation then can only be found in the different circumstances. And in fact it can be shown from the texts that the two cases were fundamentally different in spite of external similarities. The Weak of Gal tried to enforce circumcision with all its subsequent observances as a sacrament necessary for salvation. Thus the observance or non-observance of the Mosaic Law became a matter of dogma, heresy and excommunication. On the other hand, though the Weak of Rom also had a high opinion of their observances, there is no indication that they regarded them as necessary for salvation. For them as well as for their opponents these observances were a matter of opinion and practice, comparable with pious customs of today. That they preferred to associate with those who shared their views and mode of life was only natural. Nor is it difficult to understand how this preference could become a matter of conscience. ’The stricter the rule, the holier the life’, sums up a very common experience. At all events the Apostle’s positive teaching with regard to this point in 14:1-15:13 does not go beyond the conclusion that whenever this or that rule of life comes to be considered as the more perfect, its acceptance or non-acceptance becomes a matter to be decided by the conscience of the individual in question. But that does not make it a matter of dogma, heresy or excommunication in the Church at large. In brief, there is no contradiction between Gal and Romans 14:1-; Romans 15:13. For similar concessions on the part of St Paul see 1 Cor 8; Acts 16:3; Acts 21:20-26.

XIV 1-12 Let the Strong and the Weak avoid criticizing each other— The Apostle admonishes to mutual tolerance but does not deny the existing difference between the Weak and the Strong. The reasons which impose the self-restraint necessary for this mutual tolerance are:

(1) 4-9, the Weak as well as the Strong are Christians and as such belong to Christ. As long as this bond of allegiance to Christ as the one Lord of all exists, no Christian can without trespassing on his Master’s rights take it upon himself to condemn a fellow-servant who belongs to Christ as much as he himself.

(2) 5c, cf. 22c, 23, it ought to be remembered that besides dogma there is in Christian life also a large province in which it must be left to each Christian to make sure of his own conviction and to follow his own conscience.

(3) 10-12, one day each man’s conduct will be judged before the tribunal of God; then each will have to give an account of himself, not of his fellow-Christian.

(4) Condemning each other in matters of practice and conscience endangers peace and unity. This fourth reason is derived from the trend of the whole exhortation.

1. ’Weak in faith’: has been explained (1) as weak in the theological virtue of faith; (2) as weak in the comprehending of the Christian doctrine of faith; (3) as weak in applying that faith; (4) as weak in conscience; (5) ’him who is weak receive in faith’, Sahidic version. Of these nr 4 is the simplest and perhaps the most practical, but nr 3 philologically the more accurate. For whatever the context, faith is wider than conscience. 5c. ’Let each be fully assured in his own mind’, WV. For if he acted against his own conviction, he would commit sin, cf. 14:2. The phrase must not be understood as being satisfied with one’s own mind. 7 f. is a Christian principle of fundamental importance, cf.2 Corinthians 5:15; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:21; Philippians 1:21; Philippians 2:9, Philippians 2:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:10. 862f

13-23 Let the Strong avoid scandalizing the Weak— Having warned both parties against mutual criticism St Paul passes on to the positive duty of mutual edification. This exhortation he addresses to the Strong, excepting perhaps 20, 22 f. In brief: sympathy is Paul’s way of meeting the scrupulosity of Christians who are still so weak in their faith that they cannot forget their inherited pious customs through which the kind of food they eat has become part of their religious life, cf.1 Corinthians 8:7-13. Plan. The Apostle’s thoughts flow backwards and forwards. But studying the reasons with which he tries to persuade the Strong to sacrifice their rights for the benefit of the Weak will help to trace the main sequence of thought. These reasons are: (1) 15b, 20-23, the commandment of charity, which forbids giving scandal, endangering anyone’s supernatural life. (2) 15c, 20a, the disproportion between the gain of a dish of food and the loss of a soul for which Christ has died. (3) 16, 18, the good reputation of the Christian faith. (4) 17 f., the spiritual character of the kingdom of God, which lies not in the freedom from this or that ceremonial law, but in its supernatural graces and virtues—holiness, peace and joy. (5) 19a, the duty of preserving peace and unity in the Church. (6) 19b, the duty of mutual edification.

13b. ’Stumbling-block or scandal’: of these two synonyms the latter has been adopted in the CTS Catechism q 206 and 208. Its earliest occurrence in the Greek Bible is Leviticus 19:14 LXX; in the Latin Bible Exodus 10:7 Vg. The main passage in the NT to be consulted is Matthew 18:7; cf. also St Thomas, Sum. theol. II 2 q 43 a 1. 14 is important in the discussion whether and why the Mosaic Law of clean and unclean foods in Lev 11 has been abrogated. As Paul here clearly says, the authority for this abrogation is in Christ’, cf.Matthew 15:10 f., 15-20; Mark 7:14 f., 17-23; Acts 10:9-16. This verse has also been quoted in defence of indecent art, literature and amusement, cf.1 Timothy 4:4. These are said here to be sanctioned for those who resemble the Strong in faith of 14:1-15:13. But this argument, if it were serious, would overlook the evident fact that 14:1-15:13 is concerned with the importance of pious customs not with border cases of immorality. And further, even where pious customs are concerned, in 14:14-23 the Strong are clearly admonished not to insist on their opinion.

19. ’Thus we pursue peace and mutual edification’: the metaphor ’to build up, to edify’ is frequently used by St Paul for the growth and progress of Christian life, cf.1 Corinthians 3:9 f., 16; 8:10; 14:26; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 2 Corinthians 10:8; Ephesians 2:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:11. There were occasions when St. Paul ’pursued peace’ along different lines, cf.Acts 15:1 f.; Galatians 2:3 f.22b. ’He that’: can be (1) the Strong, whose conscience must condemn him if he chooses to go his own way regardless of the scandal to others; (2) the Weak, who is advised to follow his own conscience in this matter of foods regardless of the stronger faith of others; (3) anyone without a scrupulous conscience. 23b. ’Because his eating is not the outcome of faith’, WV = he acts in bad conscience, KNT. It is generally acknowledged that faith here does not mean abstract dogmatic faith, but applied faith, personal conviction, conscience. 23c. The doctrine of this sentence can be expressed in the form of two possible translations.

(1) ’All that is done in bad conscience is sin’, cf. KNT. In this form the verse states a principle which is true for all men, Christians as well as pagans.

(2) ’All that is not the outcome of faith is sin’, WV. In this form the principle is true only of Christians. For whatever a Christian does must be in accordance with his faith. To let every action be the outcome of his faith is the Christian’s ideal of sanctity according to St Paul, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:31; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Colossians 3:17.

This second explanation is to be preferred because of the context, which is concerned with Christians only, and not with pagans. This verse therefore should never have been applied by later theology to the actions of pagans. 23 fin. is followed by 16:25-27 (doxology) in some MSS, cf. § 863l.