Those who are not conformed to the world will show the required behaviors.  They will be those people who are transformed by the Holy Spirit and whose minds are constantly and continuously being renewed by the Holy Spirit.

The chapter deals with the tensions that arise between brethren, because of certain differences in what they think is correct.  There is no question that the people involved are brethren but where there are differences, it is to be expected that they will be some conflict in views.

The issue seems to surround the “weak brothers” and those who do not consider themselves to be weak.  Paul's instructions seem to focus on commanding believers to accept or to “keep on taking to yourselves” people who were ‘weak in faith’, without passing judgment on “disputable matters”.

The question then arises as to who are these weak brothers and the nature of their scruples.  The text however does not address this matter in great detail and the full range of their scruples is uncertain.

This makes the interpretation of the text somewhat controversial, as there are different views of what Paul is implying.  It is clear however that Paul is discussing the behavior of believers and their relationship with other people in the faith. He is focusing on the issue of personal convictions held by believers and the effects these can have on Christian conscience.

Everyone recognizes that Paul is not discussing differences over absolutes or fundamental doctrines of the faith.  It is readily admitted by all, that no Christian should dispute the fact that there are moral and biblical absolutes, or doctrinal certainties, such as prohibition against lying, stealing, adultery or any kind of immorality and the acceptance of all apostolic doctrine.

In making clear what Paul is talking about, writers often state that Paul is speaking about the matter of “personal convictions” only.  This is done, because it is recognized that when the matter of Christian liberty and conscience is discussed, the discussion will inevitably take into consideration that there will be differences between individual Christians.

For Sabbath keepers it is important to establish whether the seventh Day Sabbath keeping is a moral and biblical absolute.  Similarly, is the Old Testament instruction on tithing an absolute?  Is one's view of the nation of Israel as the chosen people an absolute?

When we consider this matter we must of course put it in context, for Paul was writing to Romans who were Jewish and Gentile and who were living in a power center filled with a wide variety of powerful pagans from every stripe of idolatry and kinds of immorality.

Some people say that these “weak brothers” were Jewish converts who believed that they still had to obey all the ceremonial laws.

If however one looks at the text, even casually, it is clear that this could hardly be the case, for in verse 2 we are told that they abstained from all meat, and refused to drink wine (verse 21).  These things were not prohibited in the Law of Moses.

Others believe they were brethren who used meat but not meat that had been offered in sacrifice to idols, nor wine, which had been used as a libation to false gods. Still there is nothing in the context, which limits it like that.

Still others propose that these “weak brothers” were Gentiles who belonged previously to the ascetic school of Pythagorean philosophy, which was getting popular among both Jews and Gentiles in Rome. 

One possible explanation is that in Rome there were Jewish Christians who belonged to a strict and scrupulous group such as the Essenes, who avoided even more things than the ceremonial Law of Moses required.  We must remember that asceticism was very popular at different stages of history.

In a place like Rome it was most likely that many of the new converts came in to the church with a wide variety of views on all kinds of unimportant issues. The problem would of course be to differentiate between what were ‘frivolous’ or ‘trivial’ matters and what were serious matters of doctrine.

The issue in Romans 14 does not look like one relating only to the difference between a Jew and a Gentile. Clearly abstaining from meat and wine were not characteristically Jewish.

There is no justification for believing that Paul is here wiping out all differences in value between religious practices.  He is not telling believers to accept everything that every convert brought into the faith. If that were so, Paul would be contradicting his teaching in his other letters and would be acting in opposition to his own practice, the practice of the other Apostles, the teaching and practice of the prophets, and the practice of Jesus himself.

It seems clear that some people approach Romans 14 with certain presuppositions, and read into the text their preferences about ‘foods’ and about ‘worship days’.

Still Paul discusses “disputable matters” and never teaches that there are not fundamental truths that every believer must accept.  In fact, he continues in this chapter with many non- negotiable doctrines.

When Paul discusses those matters of dispute, and apparently in dealing with the food issue he uses a word, which refers to “herbs”, (lacana, from lacanw, to dig) hence garden herbs or vegetables.  The reason some believers were vegetarians is not stated.  It is only an assumption that these people were vegetarians because this insured or protected them against eating meat offered to idols.

On one side, the ‘meat eaters’, were not to despise the ‘vegetarians’, and vegetarians should not criticize the meat eaters.  Believers were not to treat each other as nothing, and with contempt, but should realize that God had brought both groups into his fellowship without regard to their being vegetarians or meat eaters.

We are therefore dealing with attitudes, which do not flow, from the “new man”.  Attitudes must flow from an understanding of who God is, what he has done for his people, and what he requires from his people. God has already told us what he wants, what is right and what is wrong, and “freedom” is not the issue. 

We should remember that this chapter is part of the discussion on living in Christ, which means among others things, that there should genuine love, without hypocrisy.  People who are different should be loved, even if they might have habits that are peculiar or that might even require a change.

We should stick to what God said, not try to dispose of his instructions, or to add our own reading to his Word.

The phrase “weak in the faith” in this context strongly suggests, a lack of knowledge or a firm grip on doctrine or a very shallow comprehension in the things of God. 

 Concerning the mystery of the church as the body of Christ, Paul in Ephesians 5:25,32 tells us that we should love as Christ loved the church-his body- and gave himself for it.  This is the manner in which we aught to receive a brother in the faith.

Some may suggest that because we are motivated by love, we must be accepting of everyone and in all matters.  However, this is clearly not the teaching of Scripture.  Paul has already established the boundaries, in that he describes those as being weak are most assuredly in the faith – true believers.  Thus the believer’s relationships in dealing with those outside of the faith are defined in other passages of Scriptures, but not here in Romans 14.

The Scripture also clearly acknowledges that disputes will arise: see 1 Corinthians 11:17-19;Titus 3:9; 2 Timothy 2:14-15.  It is evident that Paul is referring to a particular type of dispute, in which edification and unity in the spirit are undermined and those already weak in the faith are left in doubt.  One writer describes ‘doubtful disputations’ as  “… vain jangling and perverse disputings, such as will rather perplex than inform them; and will leave their minds doubtful and in suspense, and do them more harm than good.”

Verse 2.   Paul now begins to give the first of two examples to clarify and elaborate on this teaching to refrain from judging a brother’s motives. Aside from testing the soundness of ones doctrine, which is mandated by Scripture; one must leave the judging of motives or another’s conscience to God, it is his prerogative only, for He sees and knows all things.

One believes he may eat all things, his conscience being clear and his understanding deep, while he that is weak in the faith or lacks understanding, restricts himself to eating only vegetables. Maybe but not necessarily for fear of eating what might have been offered to idols and therefore he considers it unclean. (1 Corinthians 8)

To avoid the popular but false teaching that this or subsequent verses have anything to do with the eating of unclean meats under the Mosaic Law, one must consider the historic setting. 

Firstly the setting was among a mixed congregation of Jewish and Gentile Christians living in Rome. Rome was a place of immense immorality and idolatry; it was common practice that pagan priests after making sacrifice to their idols would then sell the remains to the merchants who operated out of the local market place.  It is most likely that those Gentile believers, who prior to conversion had participated in idol worship, now rejected all that reminded them of such practices, including the possibility of eating meat once offered to idols.

Note however that these “weak ones”, refrain from eating all types of meat, not only those considered unclean by the Mosaic Law. There is therefore more to it that just Jewish custom or inclination.

Some therefore believe that from the context that this Scripture could be referring to practices mentioned in 1 Corinthians 8, but in any case there is no suggested eradication of the Law of Moses.

Concerning the principles of conscience; the first example is primarily to aid the understanding of the  “weak” believers, who could have been ascetic Jews or Gentiles, and those Jews and Gentile who may also have been caught in the sin of idolatry.

This passage of Scripture demonstrates the attitude and the action that the strong should have toward the weak.  The liberty that the strong have acquired through knowledge must not be an instrument that causes his brother to stumble.

Verse 4.   Paul inquires as it were; who are we to accuse, to judge or condemn those whom God has chosen?  Who are we, that by our actions cause God’s chosen to stumble, those whom God said he would make stand – in the full fellowship of the church.   And who are we to condemn God’s elect; those God has promised to present faultless before His throne, with exceeding joy?

We must be very careful however in this matter.  Paul spoke differently about the same things under different circumstances.  For example he circumcised Timothy to conform to the Law of Moses, and he himself said that to the Jews he became a Jew.  Why then would Paul direct believers to treat some “scruples” as matters of indifference, not to be treated as important or necessary for acceptance with God?

We note that Paul refused to allow Titus to be circumcised, warning the Galatians that Christ would be of no benefit to them if they were circumcised.

In that case however following “scruples” would nullify God's method of freely providing justification.  Circumcision would be introducing justification on ‘additional terms’, something that was unacceptable to God.

Observing “scruples” therefore might violate principles, and that was unacceptable.  But if there were no principles at stake then ‘ scruples’ would not involve apostasy.

We point out then, that when God has commanded something, it ceases to be a matter of  ‘scruples’, and must be observed and not simply ignored are done away with. 

Verse 5.   Having dealt with the issue from the true perspective, Paul now proceeds with an example that his Jewish brethren could appreciate. 

Having come to the saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the understanding that Jesus’ death is a propitiation for sin and had fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law that were embodied in some of the many ordinances previously observed; one was no longer obligated to observe those ordinances.  

Some of those ordinances were no longer required and many of them involved temple worship in Jerusalem; worship in which their Gentiles brothers would not be permitted to participate, being Gentiles and considered unclean by unbelieving Jews.

Let us not assume that it was only Jews that had sacred days.  The Gentiles also had many sacred days.  Both had to learn that they had to make intelligent and honest decisions according to the light possessed by each.

There would be disagreements between Jews and Gentiles, and among Jews themselves, as to how to treat the varying sacred days.  Some would regard it as absolutely necessary to observe these days, while others would not. 

Note that there is no evidence of Sunday worship or first day of the week worship in the church at this time.  That development came later and was systematized with the political machinations of the pagan Emperor Constantine.

Paul stresses that the violation of the principle of conscience is sin; and that every man should be persuaded in his own mind.  We must accept one another as Christ has accepted us.  Where there is a lack of knowledge we must edify one another, where there is sin we must correct one another, and all must be done in the bond of love.   For we belong to the Lord.

Verse 6.   Paul puts it quite simply; what ever we do, we must do as onto the Lord. Each doing what he does because he believes it is God’s will.  If there is no clear violation of God’s word – that is sin, then God alone can judge such matters; all will give an account to God.

As a matter of interest we should further note that this passage of Scripture, and in particular verses 2 & 5, the portions that deal with the eating of meat and the observance of feast days, Jewish or otherwise, are cited as proof text to the abolition of the law and subsequently the observance of the Seventh day Sabbath.

However, to arrive at such a conclusion, one has to deliberately ignore the context of the Scripture as well as to twist a host of others to formulate such a doctrine.  As previously discussed, verse 2 can be considered as referring to ascetic practices and the eating of meat offered to idols. Some might have restricted themselves to a diet of herbs, not willing to risk the possibility of eating such meat, but others were ascetic for different reasons.

The Mosaic Law referred to specific meat as being unclean, all others being therefore lawful for consumption, leaving no obvious reason to abstain from all meats, as stated in this verse.

The proponents of Sunday worship also read into Romans 14:5 elements that not only contradict the Bible, but also contradict their own interpretation which they suggest proves that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer to be observed.

Verse 7.  Continuing at verse 7 Paul concludes as to what it really means to belong to the Lord.  All true believers are new creatures in Christ 2 (Corinthians 5:17), and it is God that works in us to do what pleases Him (Philippians 2:13).  We aught not to do those things that from the flesh only engender strife; for we all belong to him and are a part of his body.

This verse confirms that believers are not their own masters and free to do whatever they choose to do according to their own will or to meet their own desires.  They are servants of Christ and must live according to the will of Christ and for his glory.  In death as well as in life, believers must realize that they are in the hands of God, and must act accordingly.

Verse 8.   This verse is very explicit.  Nobody can misunderstand this. Christ is the supreme object of the Christian's life, and we belong to him. ‘Bought with a price, his blood, we are no longer our own’.  In life we live to worship him, and in death we await the resurrection, at which time we will receive a body like his glorious body.

The true Christian belongs to Christ and must be treated properly.  Every action of the believer must be regulated by this fact, in his life and in how he treats other believers.

Verse 9.   Christ died and lives again- this emphatically demonstrates his complete Lordship over his redeemed; whether they be living or dying, he is their Lord and we belong to Him.  Christ has dominion over us.

We cannot assess the worth of a fellow human being as easily as we like to think.  Our task is to point people to the Word of God, and to encourage them and exhort them to obedience. We should not condemn in the sense of pronouncing judgment.  Even if we expel someone from the body, so that Satan can destroy their flesh, we look forward to their repentance and resumption to fellowship in the Body.

Verse 10-12.   Now that Paul has demonstrated the Lordship of Christ, he restates that Christ alone can take the responsibility of judging a believer’s motives and actions, and this will be accomplished at the judgment seat of God.  It is here that everyone will give an account to God.  Paul admonishes the weak believer not to judge his brother, and likewise he admonishes the strong believer not to despise his weaker brother.

If a believer acts sincerely from a desire to do the divine will, thinking certain things are right that we think are wrong, they should be no condemnation or despising.  We should not usurp the prerogative of God.  We should be very careful about condemning those that God has received.

Paul quoted from Isaiah 45: 23 to express the idea that everyone will submit to God and recognize that he is the Supreme Ruler and Judge.  He has universal dominion and is sovereign and we must wait on his decision and not rush before him to judge our brother.

Verse 13.   Finally, Paul says rather than judge each other’s motives or convictions; ensure that we do not cause our brother to stumble.  The underlying principle here is love.  Even in those cases where a brother is caught in a fault, the admonition is to restore him in the spirit of meekness and love.  James 5:16

The principle here given is that we are not to harm others.

These people might be frustrating to live with, and they are often demanding and interfering in the good work of the brethren, constantly appearing to sabotage good initiatives, with little apparent possibility of a quick fix, despite our good intentions.

The strong are the only ones with the endurance and maturity to live with them over the long haul.  That is the task, and it is not an easy one if they do not rely totally on the strength of the Holy Spirit.

Paul says we should look at the example of Jesus Christ.  If the brethren think that they are going to glorify God, they must realize that they can only do it together with others.

This is definitely not a solo performance.

It takes everyone and therefore the strong should bear with the weak, so that they too can be in the choir, with all the hearts and all the mouths singing together to the praise of God the Father.

Judging our brother by one’s own conscience or those things that seem good to us is folly. 

One brother can jump and shout “glory to God”, while another sit in silence with his head bowed, each responding to the spirit differently and each secretly thinking the other should do as they do.

What qualifies us to judge another’s motives? The Scripture says we must accept one another, love each other and judge those things that we do that may cause our brother to stumble.  Knowing that all will stand before the judgment seat of God, let us not do the bidding of Satan in tearing down our brother, but be vessels of honor and praise to our God, the strong upholding the weak. 1 Thessalonians 5:14

Convictions are important for they govern our behavior, but if they are conclusions not specifically based on Scripture, defined by God who alone has the right to say what is right and what is wrong, we must consider our convictions carefully, and be careful that we do not approve of things that God does not approve and establish standards at our personal discretion.  We should review the things that we do that have no specific biblical instruction, and not impose those things on people.  Christians can exercise liberty with respect to those things only.

We must be careful when we infer things.  Some of the things that we infer are private matters, between us and God.

Many for example do not realize that there was a time when many Christians thought that having a piano in the church was a great heresy.  For many going to a movie theatre was a great sin, irrespective of what kind of movie they were watching.  It was also felt that TVs were of the devil.  They are many other examples.

The danger is when we establish these practices as examples for others, those weak in faith may be influenced and encouraged to violate their own convictions by doing what their conscience condemns.  We have to be careful not to inflict grief or hurt on others.

It must be said that there is a desperate need among Christians for solid convictions.  New Christians must be encouraged to learn to think for themselves, but only according to how Scripture directs him.  We must tell new Christians to conform to the Holy Spirit and not necessarily to the codes and values of the church and the Christian community and certainly not to the world.

Convictions are to be rooted in Scripture, not in the emotions.