Romans 14.1-4, 22-23.
Sometimes I’m asked about a certain topic. Recently it was about Romans 14, and I figured that’s a discussion which needs something far more than a short answer. Christians use this chapter in a number of ways; typically to fight whatever they describe as legalism and hypocrisy, whether it’s actually those things or not.
The chapter begins by Paul introducing his audience—the Christians of the city of Rome, a city he’s not yet visited, though he knows a number of its denizens—to the concept of the weak-in-faith Christian. It’s one a lot of Christians skim over, ’cause we’re too busy preaching on legalism and hypocrisy. But it’s an important concept, so let’s take a minute to look at it closely. To the scriptures!
Romans 14.1-4 KWL 1 Take in the weak-in-faith Christian,- not the argument-starting Christian.
2 One person believes they¹ can eat everything,- and one weak-in-faith person only eats vegetables.
3 You who eat everything:- Don’t scorn the one who doesn’t eat!
- And you who don’t eat:
- Don’t condemn the one who eats!
- For God accepts them,¹
4 and who are you¹ to judge another’s servant?- They¹ stand or fall
- before their own master,
- and they¹ will stand up
- because their¹ Master can make them stand.
Lemme start by defining weakness in the faith, and I’ll define it the way Paul does at the end of this chapter.
Romans 14.22-23 KWL 22 You¹ have a belief of your¹ own:- Have it between yourself and God.
- You who don’t condemn yourselves¹
- for what you think is right
- are awesome.
23 One who still doubts it’s okay when they¹ eat,- was condemned because it’s not their belief.
- Everything which isn’t their belief
- is sin.
Being weak in faith is not, as some Christians claim, the same thing as being new in the Christian faith. That’s a teaching I’ve heard from time to time—that these folks are weak in faith because they’re new in faith; they haven’t followed Jesus long enough to learn to be strong in faith. ’Tain’t necessarily so. I’ve known longtime Christians who are extremely weak in faith. We’re meant to grow out of it, but some of us haven’t, and at this rate never will.
What Paul’s talking about are people whose consciences won’t let them do things. That’s actually true of all of us: My conscience tells me I shouldn’t steal. So does the bible; so do the laws of California and the United States, and most countries. But what decisively gets me to not rob people is, of course, my conscience. If my conscience didn’t have any problem with it—if I thought theft was okay under certain circumstances, or that I’m somehow an exception and it’s okay for me—I might steal. Might steal a lot; theft is way easier to get away with than most other crimes. Those of you with consciences which forbid stealing, might call me a sociopath, and you’d be right if I took thievery so lightly. But as you can see, most of us have consciences which forbid the things most folks consider sin. We were raised to not sin; to recognize these sins seriously disrupt the social order; to believe God strongly disapproves. Our consciences were well-trained.
But the weak in faith: These are the people whose consciences are extra restrictive. They believe more things are probably sins. They believe there are many things Christians are forbidden to do. Not just stuff in the bible, either: Christians should do all that too, but we should also abstain from loads of things. No swearing. No drinking. No gambling. No popular music. No movies other than G-rated Disney fairy tales. No
Yep, weak-in-faith Christians are what we’d call
And Paul tells us not to scorn them. Which, y’might notice, is what non-legalists typically do. Quite often we quote Romans 14 when we’re doing it. “But why dost thou judge thy brother?”
The non-legalists? Strong in faith. They’re not so tempted to sin, they need a few thousand bonus rules, just in case. Legalists? Super tempted. Rules against swearing because they’d swear their heads off if they could. Rules against drinking because they’d get alcohol poisoning every night if unrestricted. Rules against gambling because they’d leave every casino not just penniless, but butt naked with their thumbs broken. They can’t be trusted to be good without a ton of rules. Too immature.
And we who are strong in faith, need to have their back. So stop condemning them and help these weak sisters and brothers out!
Vegans versus omnivores.
The example Paul starts off with—one Christian who eats everything, another who only eats vegetables—was an issue in his day. It comes up in
What do you do with the thousands of animals you killed in your rituals, which you can’t possibly eat on your own? Well, sell the surplus to the public; it’ll raise money for the temples. And in those pre-refrigeration days, priced to move. So Romans—including Christians—would buy their meat from this market. Two problems though: These animals were killed to worship pagan gods; and these animals were killed by strangulation, which meant they weren’t drained properly. Not eating bloody meat
Now, this was absolutely a valid concern. James, at the end of the Council of Jerusalem, decreed new Christians shouldn’t eat meat offered to idols, nor strangled meat.
But Revelation was written a decade after Paul wrote to the Romans and Corinthians, so Paul didn’t know his Lord’s take on the issue. Instead Paul used his commonsense, and figured, “Pagan gods aren’t real gods anyway”
Anyway, in the ancient church you had Christians on either side of the debate. Christians who figured, like Paul, it’s fine; “the earth belongs to the L
In short, the strong in faith, whose consciences could handle it; and the weak in faith, whose consciences really couldn’t.
If you’ve been around longtime and newbie Christians, you’ve likely seen this typical misbehavior among both of them: The longtimers do the very thing Paul said not to do, and mock the newbies for being paranoid. And the newbies likewise do as Paul said not to do, and condemn the longtimers as a bunch of
Since the strong in faith are supposedly
I would add to this—and this is me, not Paul—the mature Christians must also educate the newbies. Explain why we believe it’s okay to do as we’re doing. Don’t just arrogantly say, “I’ve been Christian longer; I know better.” We might not know better; we might’ve seared our consciences after years of misbehavior.
We may not convince the newbies. Even so, they’ve been instructed by Paul: Don’t condemn the one who does differently than you. Because God accepts them. And you. You’re all Christians, whether you agree about every single issue or not; whether you’re strong or weak in faith.
Not the argument-starting Christians.
Yeah, you might’ve noticed I didn’t translate verse 1 as it’s commonly interpreted. Most bibles follow the
Romans 14.22-23 KJV - Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
Which kinda makes it sound like Paul’s saying, “Take in the weak in faith, but don’t let them doubt or argue.” (Good luck with that!) But I would say it’s more accurate to say Paul’s instructing, “Take in the weak in faith; not [the ones into] disputes of opinions.”
See, the Christian life is one of
I know; plenty of Christians insist we should turn no one away, because God accepts everyone. Well yes—but God accepts the repentant, and like I said the argument-starting Christian isn’t that. Such people are harmful disruptions, so we gotta remove them until they stop it. Sometimes they do, but in my experience they go find some other church which doesn’t know to keep them out, and go bother them until that church finally recognizes they have to remove the disruption.
And yes, these disruptors are weak in faith too. They wanna argue because they think they’re standing up for the truth, and truth is more important than anything—more than peace, more than kindness, more than love, more than any of the Spirit’s fruit. Obvious immaturity. Hopefully they’ll learn better, from kind Christians.
