Romans 14 is often used to justify willfully transgressing God's law concerning food (eating that which God says is not food), the Sabbath (by changing it to Sunday), and the Appointed Times (by replacing them with man-made holidays such as Christmas and Easter). Romans 14 starts by saying, "Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not to have quarrels over opinions." [Romans 14:1; NASB] Right away, we can see that Paul is writing about matters of opinion. That is, about matters that Scripture does not address. So whatever Paul says we are not to judge others for, we must interpret it in light of the fact that neither Torah, nor Yeshua (Jesus) has addressed it. Of course, I wouldn't be writing a whole blog post on this if people were actually applying Romans 14 correctly. And it turns out that, in typical fashion, the vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" use this chapter to claim that God's commandments are a matter of opinion. And this time, they (usually) openly admit that they are saying that these commandments merely matters of opinion.
To further drive the point home, let's take a look at the next verse: "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but the one who is weak eats only vegetables." [Romans 14:2; NASB] The issue here is whether one should restrict oneself to eating only vegetables. And in typical fashion, Paul doesn't give the full cultural context surrounding what it says. It assumes that the reader knows the cultural context. So what is the cultural context? Simple: In the Greek and Roman markets, some of the meats were sacrificed to idols, and many in the faith did not want to risk accidentally eating meats sacrificed to idols. What I find interesting is how Paul is actually teaching people to do the opposite of what Daniel and his companions did concerning meats sacrificed to idols [Daniel 1:8:13]. There, Daniel and his companions are praised for refusing to eat meat that might have been sacrificed to idols. But Paul says this is "weak in faith". Torah does not prohibit one from eating meats that might have been sacrificed to idols, by the way. But the fact that God rewarded Daniel and his companions in Daniel 1:8-16 should tell us how much God values going above and beyond what he requires.
Anyways, Romans 14:2 is twisted to justify ignoring God's dietary laws found in Leviticus 11. Let's assume for a moment that Romans 14:2 is permission to eat pork in spite of God's very clear command not to. What would that actually imply concerning Paul? Well, Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 prohibits us from adding to or subtracting from God's commandments. If the majority interpretation of Romans 14 is correct, then Paul is a false teacher for subtracting from God's commandments. And they wonder why so many people are convinced that Paul is a false teacher. Remember, Torah interprets the "New Testament", not the other way around. Fortunately, since the very first verse of Romans 14 explicitly states that these concern only matters of opinion, Paul is not guilty of false teachings.
The next verse states: "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." [Romans 14:3; NASB] In other words, the ones who don't concern themselves with the fact that the market meet may have been sacrificed to idols, and the ones who do concern themselves with it, are to get along with each other. Since the context is in matters of opinion, this applies to all matters not addressed by God's law. And never applies to matters in which God's law explicitly permits, requires, or prohibits something. The next verse likens judging others on matters of opinion to judging another person's servant. In this case, it's God's servant you are judging, whom Paul says will stand, not fail, for God is able to make them stand.
Continuing onto the next verse (Romans 14:5), we read: "One person values one day over another, another values every day the same. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. [NASB]". Keeping in mind that Paul cannot subtract from God's law without becoming a false teacher, and that the passage concerns matters of opinion, these days that are or are not being valued over another are not the Sabbath or God's appointed times in Leviticus 23. So what can they refer to? How about what days we are to fast on? That's right, Paul is addressing quarreling over which days are to be set aside for fasting. By the way, in Luke 18:9-14, Jesus tells a story about two men praying. One of which, a Pharisee, boasts about his self-righteousness. And among the boasts is about the fact that he fasts twice a week. Who told them to fast twice a week? Certainly not God. But since the Pharisees make such a big deal about fasting so often, it is not at all a stretch to think that people may have set aside specific days of the week to fast on, while others did not. It's also not a stretch to conclude that people would quarrel about which days (if any) that one should fast on. Romans 14:5 is clearly a condemnation of such quarrels. But it cannot be a condemnation against condemning holidays that God did not appoint to serve God with. The Israelites learned the hard way what God thinks of human beings appointing holidays on his behalf. Twice! By the way, Romans 14:6 proves that Paul is explicitly addressing fast days, as he outright states that the one who eats does so for the Lord, and the one who fasts does so for the Lord.
Romans 14:7-13 drives home the point that we will all give an account to God of ourselves and concludes that, "Therefore let’s not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this: not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s or sister’s way." [Romans 14:13; NASB] But far be it for those who want to excuse sin to not take this prime opportunity to twist Scripture to do exactly that. The plain meaning of this text, given the context, is to not judge others for having opinions that differ from yours, not to cause others to sin, not to cause distress to those who have differing opinions from you, and to not compel someone who go against their own conscience when their conscience is not contrary to God's law. But instead of following Paul's instructions, they weaponize it.
So in what ways do they weaponize Romans 14:13? First, we need to understand that they weaponize Romans 14:2 and claim that those who obey God's commands to abstain from pork are "weak in faith" while those who are unfaithful to God by willfully disobeying him are "strong in faith". That alone tells you everything you need to know about where their heart is. Obedience is labeled as "weak" while rebellion (which is idolatry) is labeled as "strong". So for Romans 14:13, when is comes to stuff like enforcing unbiblical dress codes on everyone, they will say (for those instances) that men are weak, and that women who don't cover themselves are causing men to stumble. In other words, they play the weak ones as a way to compel everyone to conform to their human standards. And it's not just in areas such as "modesty", though that is the most common area that Romans 14:13 is weaponized.
So, when it's convenient for themselves, they condemn being "weak in faith" (while ironically claiming that they aren't condemning "weakness of faith"). And when it's convenient for themselves, they demand that we always conform to those who are "weak in faith" so that we "do not cause them to stumble". But verses 2 and 13 aren't the only verses in Romans 14 that are weaponized. We'll get to those in a moment.
In verse 14, the NASB says, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean." If you read the footnotes, you'll see that the word translated as "unclean" literally means "common". So the NASB translators admit that they used the wrong word for this passage. What's the difference? "Unclean" is the word used by God to declare something as unfit for human consumption. "Common" is the word used in that day by man to declare something as unfit for human consumption. I do find it interesting that even then, the Pharisees distinguished between God's rules and their rules by using the word "common" for their own rules. Otherwise, verse 14 would say something like "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing that God has not declared unclean is unclean in itself; but to the one who thinks something is unclean, to that person it is unclean." If even the Pharisees didn't dare to conflate their own rules about what to eat or not eat with God's commandments about what to eat and not eat, then why have our translators and teachers done this by changing the very thing they say is literally the "word of God"?
By the way, verse 14 is used to justify eating things that God says we are not to eat, even though this would be a clear violation of the command to not subtract from God's commandments. Here's how the NASB should have rendered this verse:
"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common in itself; but to the one who thinks something is common, to that person it is common."
And we can see from using the correct translation that Paul is not at all saying that God's dietary regulations have been abolished. Rather, he is saying that we do not have to comply with human rules.
In verses 15 and 16, Paul says "[15] Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. [16] Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil" [NKJV]. These seem like contradictory instructions at first, to not destroy a fellow believer with one's choice of food and to not let that which is good be spoken of as evil. But there is a hint at the beginning of verse 15: "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food..." Perhaps this is because of what is being served to them. We need to also keep in mind what was said at the beginning of the chapter: "The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him" (Romans 14:3; NASB). It is likely that Paul is instructing us to not compel others to go against their own conscience in matters of opinion. The specific matters of opinion being addressed here are (a) which days of the week are fast days, and (b) whether one is allowed to eat meat that could have been sacrificed to idols, but one does not know for sure have been sacrificed to idols.
Once again, none of these passages apply to any matter that God explicitly commanded us to do or not to do. If you do something that God's law forbids, then you sin. If you do not do something that God's law requires, you also sin. But if you do something that God's law does not forbid, or do not do something that God's law does not require, then you do not sin. If two people have opposite opinions on something that God's law neither forbids or requires, then that is when Romans 14 applies. It is in these cases where Paul is saying that neither person is to judge the other. And if we take a look at Deuteronomy 4:2 or 12:32, we can see quite clearly that the real sin is adding to and subtracting from God's commandments. If you require something that God's law does not require, or forbid something that God's law does not forbid, and call that requirement a command of God, then you sin. Likewise, if you permit that which God's law forbids or make optional that which God's law requires, then you also sin.
Although we aren't quite done with Romans 14, if I were to summarize it, it would be this: Romans 14 is correcting those who judge others for doing that which is contrary to their own opinion. We can certainly discuss our opinions and why we have them. But we should not be elevating them to the same level as God's commandments. Instead, we should do our best to get along in spite of our differences in opinion.
By the way, Romans 14:17-19 tells us why we should do all of this: "[17] for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [18] For the one who serves Christ in this way is acceptable to God and approved by other people. [19] So then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another" [NASB]. Our goal is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, not nit-picking on matters of opinion. While it is clear here that it is wrong to go out of your way to offend those who's opinions differ from your own, it is also clear that it is wrong to compel others to conform to your opinion so that you are never offended.
Romans 14:20 says "Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense." The word translated as "offense" is also translated as "stumbling". Using what we've learned so far in this chapter, "stumbling" here refers to going against your own conscience, even if what you are doing is permissible according to Torah. And the next two verses reiterate that point, closing with, "[22] ... Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. [23] But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." in verse 22-23.
If you approve of something that Torah is silent on, then you shall have no doubts about doing what you approve of. If you do it with doubt, then you sin. Not because you have transgressed Torah, but because you have done something contrary to your conscience. And your conscience serves to keep you from transgressing God's commandments, and to keep you on the path of righteousness.
Some may try to claim that "whatever is not from faith is sin" means that we can do things contrary to Torah, so long as it's done "from faith". But this line of reasoning quickly falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny. For example, can we lie as long as it's "from faith"? Can we steal as long as it's "from faith"? Can we commit adultery as long as it's "from faith"? If you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you answer "no" to everything that is contrary to Torah. In fact, the definition of sin is the transgression of Torah (1 John 3:4).
If someone decides they should fast once or twice a week, they do it to the Lord. And if someone never fasts, they do it to the Lord. If someone decides to eat only vegetables, they do it to the Lord. If someone decides to eat meat, they do it to the Lord. Likewise, the woman who's standards of "dressing modesty" requires them to cover all of their legs, arms, and torso does so to the Lord. And the woman who's standards of "dressing modestly" permits them leave their legs and arms uncovered, and show cleavage, does so to the Lord. The one who uses technology on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from using technology on the Sabbath. The one who plays games on the Sabbath does so to the Lord, as does the one who abstains from playing games on the Sabbath. And the same rule applies to all matters in which Torah is silent.
The one who is quick to judge and is easily offended should learn to get along and not be easily offended. The one who seeks to offend others should stop seeking to offend others and learn to accommodate others where the accommodation asked for is reasonable. And accommodation shall not be demanded outside of any setting that you are not in charge of. That includes pressuring those who are in charge to demand accommodation.
