Romans 14:1

In Romans 12, Paul deals with various moral obligations, in Romans 13, with political obligations, and in this, with reciprocal obligations of church members to each other regarding differences of opinions. The unity of the church of Christ, and, to a degree, its uniformity, are necessary and commendable; but the ability of the Christian fellowship to survive in situations where strong differences of opinions tends to disrupt unity required that specific instructions be given to the problem of containing within the sacred fellowship contradictory views, not on matters essential, but upon matters indifferent. This problem has confronted the church of every generation, and divisions have occurred again and again over things of secondary, or even trivial, moment. Romans 14:1-12 give instructions for the overscrupulous Christians who made indifferent things a matter of conscience; and Romans 14:13-23 outline the instructions for the proper employment of Christian liberty.

There is a marked difference between the problems here discussed from the similar problems of the Galatians and Corinthians (1 Corinthians 8; Galatians 4:10). Those Christians scrupled at eating meat sacrificed to idols, whereas those addressed here did not eat meat at all and apparently drank no wine (Romans 14:21); moreover, there is a possibility that the various days esteemed as sacred differed to some extent from the sabbaths and festivals of the Jewish institution, and quite possibly included some days or festivals esteemed sacred by the pagans. However, as Hodge noted:

There is nothing inconsistent with the assumption that the weak brethren here spoken of were scrupulous Jewish Christians.[1]

There is even a greater difference in Paul's manner of dealing with the problems in view here, as contrasted with those of the Corinthians and Galatians mentioned above. There, Paul is dogmatically firm, "No idol is anything in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4). In the case of the Galatians, he said:

Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain (Galatians 4:10,11).

Contrasted with such a firm attitude there, is the fact that Paul made little if any effort in this chapter to correct the errors of the weak brethren, and withheld any denunciation of them comparable to that hurled at the Galatians, giving the strongest emphasis to containing the problem within the boundary of Christian love, rather than taking up the task of rooting out the error. This latter fact goes far to establish the fact that the errors of the "weak brethren" in Rome were in some manner different from the similar group in Galatia and Corinth. This would be explained if it might be assumed that those brethren had gone far beyond scrupulous observances upon their own behalf and were attempting to bind their scruples upon others, whereas the Romans held to their scruples more or less on a private basis. As Batey said:

Fortunately, a fair understanding of Paul's teaching in this section does not require an exact identification of the Christians he had in mind.[2]

The most surprising thing in this chapter is that the "weak brother" is identified as the over-strict one, and not as the one who exercised his liberty in Christ!

[1] Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 417.

[2] Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: The R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 165.

But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for the decision of scruples. (Romans 14:1)

The sacred fellowship of Christians must not be broken over differences of opinion regarding things indifferent or secondary. Christ has received all Christians, and the least they can do is to receive each other. How utterly unlike Christ is the bitter and vindictive rejection of a brother in Christ over things involving his weak conscience! Paul's teaching here clearly demands the conclusion that a Christian can be wrong about some things, and yet entitled to full fellowship. The weak brethren in view here were plainly wrong about their vegetarianism, but were to be retained in fellowship despite this. Of course, error in regard to vital truth is not the theme Paul had under consideration here.

Yet not for the decision of scruples ... is translated in several ways; and perhaps the Holy Spirit chose words with a broad range of meaning in order to include a number of ideas. Without trying to decide which is the correct meaning, that seeming to be an insoluble problem, one might assume that several shades of meaning are intended. The weak brother should be received, but in such a way as not to make his petty scruples the rule of the congregation, and not for the purpose of disputing with him concerning those scruples ("not for doubtful disputations" as some translate), and not for the purpose of subjecting the weak brother to any pressure with regard to changing his scruples. He should be accepted, and loved, scruples and all!