Commentary on Romans 14

by Philip McPherson Rudisill

Note: This essay is rather old and has been superseded by an essay entitled a
Summary of Romans.

Few chapters in the bible reach the sublime to the extent achieved by this very simple presentation of the Christian ethic with regard to differences of opinion on right and wrong. Many disputes would come to an early end if the spirit of this chapter were to hold constant sway in the hearts of the members of the Christian community.

This section of Paul's letter is directed to the so-called strong in faith and concerns their conduct with regard to the "weak in faith." What Paul means by the strong in faith is given in the preceding chapter.

We begin Romans 13* by learning that the Christian complies with the laws or decrees of the civil authorities only incidentally to his compliance with the law of love, i.e., heshe acts in conscience, i.e., civil decrees suggest what is needful for rational, societal discourse and exchange and this is precisely the goal of the Christian.** Thus the real law, for the Christian, is the law of love (or the Golden Rule), and it is in accordance with this that all actions are undertaken. The Christian has no time to engage with subterfuge and deceit and appearances, *** for heshe is a new person by virtue of having "put on" the Lord Jesus. In brief: the Christian is now a being of conscience and is ruled by the law of love.

[* Which, in turn, follows upon the great chapter (12) of admonitions, where the Christian is urged to think less of self and more of others.]

[** As an example, the Christian, seeing a speed limit sign, does not comply due to fear of detection and punishment, but rather because heshe will generally understand that this represents the highest safe speed and complies with the sign for that reason.]

[*** As in acting as though heshe were law abiding when not, which was the case with the hypocritical Jew of chapter 2 who differed from the flagrantly sinful Gentile (of chapter 1) only in refusing publicly to promote sinful behavior but rather in giving lip service to moral behavior.]

It is then in contrast to this thinking of chapter 13 that the Apostle turns his attention (in 14) to those whom he refers to as the weak in faith. And we can, therefore, immediately conclude that the strong in faith are those who can derive their behavior from the Golden Rule (the Law of Love) and thus who can then act accordingly without having to be told what to do by a governor or indeed any sort of external authority.* And so then, in contrast, the weak in faith are those who need to be told what to do, or also those who are willing to submit their conscience to the control of an external authority, e.g., the writers of scripture (and as children do vis-à-vis their parents), * and who feel compelled by the admonition of this other authority, and are unable to trust their own judgment in the derivation of conduct from the Law of Love.

[* See Galatians 3:23-26.]

This term, "weak in faith, " is, of course, to be understood entirely as a technical term. It has nothing to do with the worth of the individual, or of his status before God. It has nothing to do with his salvation. It merely means someone who, while heshe is unable to derive some given behavior from the Golden Rule, nonetheless considers that behavior right or wrong based on the injunction of some authority, be that scripture, priest or governor. First and foremost in this regard Paul will have the Jew in mind who feels compelled to honor certain scriptures even though heshe will not be able to relate it to the Golden Rule, e.g., homosexual behavior or the wearing of long hair by men.*

[* The bane of Paul's existence, as a Christian missionary, was having to deal with the moral immaturity of the Jew which constantly threatened to infect and inhibit the movement of the Holy Spirit within the lives of the Christians, Jewish and Gentile alike. We see this especially in Acts 15 (where Paul, for the sake of Christian unity, had to accommodate himself to the demands of the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem) and also in Galatians where Paul literally rails out against those who would compel any authority other than the Golden Rule; and says, in so many words, that any one who complies with the law because it is law, e.g., becoming circumcised, that person loses all benefit of faith in Christ and is obligated to obey the entire law.**]

[** Galatians 5:2-6.]

Occasionally a contradiction will seem to arise in Paul's own writings. On the one hand he says that the strong in faith, a blessed state, will be those who can make their own way in conscience per the Golden Rule, and then, on the other hand, he will lash out against certain behavior, e.g., homosexual conduct or long hair for men, * without the requisite reasoning which a deduction of action and behavior from a rule would require. The reconciliation lies in this consideration: every person who is strong in faith, including therefore Paul, is required to decide for himself what is right and wrong, * and unfailingly so by means of the Golden Rule. And if two people aim at a better, i.e., a more love-filled, world (which, of course, characterizes the Christian) then even though they are in this regard one in spirit, and even though each seeks honestly to derive his behavior from the Golden Rule, their thinking and their actual conduct may still easily vary with regard to how they understand causes and effects, so much so, in fact, that Paul, for example, may understand matters in such a way that he is able to derive heterosexual behavior (or even celibacy for himself) from the Golden Rule even as he is presumably able to derive a certain hair code (per 1 Corinthians 11) in a like fashion; while another is unable to fathom Paul's reasoning here at all. But the strong in faith who differ from Paul's opinion in such matters cannot allow themselves to be intimidated in any way by the fact that Paul has so ruled or that the scriptures contain the results (even if not the details) of Paul's reasoning on these matters, for they realize (per Paul's own general principle of strength in faith) that they must make their own derivation and must act according to that (and not to Paul's) in conscience. Hence, having once proclaimed the doctrine of independent thinking with regard to the Golden Rule as the mark of the strong in faith, Paul cannot, and certainly would not want to, go back and add to that: "however, what I say here as a principle does not apply in certain cases where you and I differ, for if I say that homosexual behavior, for example, is wrong, and you are unable to figure out how I could make such a derivation from the Golden Rule, you must forgo your strength in the faith and submit to me."**

[* An obligation which is avoided only by those who are weak in faith, the very point of the chapter.]

[** It is helpful, when reading Paul, to keep in mind that he expected an early return of the Lord Jesus and an cataclysmic transformation of all the relationships in the world; and for which reason he might very well have been willing to press for a certain behavior on the part of the Christian community in order to impress the public in a way that would be attractive, e.g., peaceful living among neighbors, and without trying to derive that behavior from the Golden Rule, e.g., his very peculiar hair code of 1 Corinthians 11.***]

[*** Regarding Paul's tirade against homosexuality in Romans 1, it is quite possible that he had in mind the total abandon with which rich and powerful Romans were enabled to indulge their sexual appetites, so much so in fact that the heterosexual, thoroughly sated by virtue of the ease of opportunity for sexual expression, turned to homosexuality in desperation; and so where then Paul's deprecation of homosexuality was really more of a shock at sexual license generally. This argument is given added credence when we remember that he speaks of men and women turning from their natural affections to the unnatural, thus (it would seem) from heterosexual behavior to homosexual, and which therefore would not at all reflect on those of a homosexual bent from before memory. But all this is speculation; and has no bearing on the argument concerning the strong and weak in faith!]

Now to the crux of chapter 14: how are the strong to deal with the weak, i.e., how are those who are comfortable with personally deriving conduct from the Golden Rule to deal with those who are uncomfortable in doing so, especially in the face of traditional authority, e.g., scripture?*

[* We need to keep in mind the three sorts of moral conduct: that which is required by the Golden Rule is obligation; that which is forbidden is prohibition; and that which is neither is permitted. Presumably some of what is permitted to the strong is forbidden to the weak, but not by virtue of the Golden Rule (in which case they would be acting as the strong) but only by another authority, e.g., peer pressure, scriptural admonition, the legal code, tradition, etc.]

Looking first at verses 1 through 12, we see two specific cases and then one more general one. First we see that the weak in faith think that it is wrong to eat meat, while the strong in faith realize that all food is the same. Then we have the analogy with regard to holiness of time, one thinking that one day, presumably the Jewish Sabbath, is more holy than all others, with the other, the strong in faith (presumably) seeing all days the same. And then there is the general case: the opposites of being do not really matter to those in Christ, for whether we are alive or dead, we still belong to Christ.

The principle to be conceived such that these conclusions might be deduced is quite clear: there is nothing either right nor wrong but thinking makes it so (a quote from Shakespeare, but which itself in turn is surely a paraphrase of verse 14 of this chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans).

Now we can grasp the weak in faith; they are those who think that something is right or wrong by virtue of the pronouncement of any authority other than their own, conscientious deduction from the Golden Rule. In neither of the specific cases is it possible (at least not for us and presumably not for those involved in the quarrel) to derive anything obligatory or prohibited from the Golden Rule. And so the strong in faith with Paul know that it is permissible* to eat meat and to work on the Sabbath. But the weak in faith have been told the contrary by somebody or have read it in the Torah or elsewhere and therefore are afraid to eat meat or to work on the sabbath for fear of offending God by violating his law.

So then the general principle arises immediately: each person must be able to derive his behavior from the Golden Rule, and no more is required, for that is also the Law and the Prophets (see also Matthew 7:12). With this one is safe in conscience and need not seek any other justification.* In one fell swoop then, Paul establishes the independence of the conduct of the Christian from all external authority, namely: he is obligated to comply with the Golden Rule both with regard to what is required and what is forbidden, and otherwise heshe is free to do as heshe pleases. This holds in all cases with regard to conscience and one's own conduct . . . with one exception, and that is when dealing with the weak in faith.

[* If someone in a formal system of Christian ethics seeks to have the First Commandment serve as the source of extra-Golden Rule practices, they mistake themselves mightily, for it is the will of God that we comply with the Golden Rule before all. This is discerned in the simple, plain judgment of the Matthew verse, ** i.e., 7:12.]

[** The importance of the First Commandment comes first upon the experience of transformation of the heart, where we see (experience) that we are beginning to love others as Christ loved us, and by virtue of which we turn to God in spontaneous adoration and thereby comply with the Greatest of the Two Commandments in spirit and in truth. And so while in a logical framework the Christian loves God first and foremost, in the temporal, cause-and-effect framework, the love of neighbor comes first and becomes the basis for the love toward God in any way except a pure formal, ritualistic worship.]

And it is now that we come to an even greater principle which more correctly characterizes the ethic of the Christian than even his dependence upon the Golden Rule; for while the individual's conscience is secure by virtue of the Golden rule, each "strong man" in the faith is to have compassion on those who are weak in the faith and is to refrain from seeking to lord it over them or to sneer at them or in any way to be demeaning to them, and especially not to cause them to stumble; indeed quite the contrary! This becomes clear as we continue on past verse 12 (and even on into chapter 15). The strong have a responsibility also for the weak in the faith, and if someone is brought to ruin by being pressed to hard on a matter of importance to them, even if the strong realizes that it is inane to think that way, still for the sake of that one who is weak, for the sake of his conscience, the strong is to refrain from the activities which would cause the ruin of the weak.*

[* Paul amplifies in 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 that we free to do anything we choose, but as Christians, i.e., in the spirit of Christ, ** we are never to choose to do anything which is demeaning or inhibiting to our brother/sister in the faith, although otherwise, i.e., when apart from those who are weak in the faith, we are free to be accountable entirely to the conscience directed by the Golden Rule.]

[** See John 15:12-13.]

The ethical teachings of the faith are now so clear and simple that even a child could understand them:

1. there is nothing wrong or right but what is prohibited by or required by the Golden Rule, respectively; but

2. the love that we hold for our brother and sister in the faith supersedes this private and entirely acceptable justification of our own, personal behavior to this extent: we are to be as concerned for their conscience as we are for our own, and so we are not to do even what is otherwise permissible, if that causes problems with our fellows.

Paul closes the chapter with an two revealing observations:

1. happy indeed is the Christian who does not have any pangs of conscience with regard to his behavior and what he promotes (or approves of); and

2. that person who acts contrary to faith, regardless of the source of the standard, i.e., be it the Golden Rule (for the strong) or scripture (for the weak), that person sins, for (we may presume) it is only what is done in faith that escapes the judgment of sin.

Therefore no one can be forced into anything which contravenes his understanding in faith, and if the weak think, for example, that homosexual behavior or long hair on men or unveiled hair on the part of women are wrong for the reason that it seems to be condemned by scripture, the strong must honor that opinion on the part of others until such weak ones are able to become strong, i.e., until they are able to live entirely by faith in that they derive all their conduct from the Golden Rule and have no need of scripture or of the governor (see Romans 13) except to prompt their recognition of causes and effects whereby they are then better able to make decisions.* The transition from the one (weakness) to the other (strength) is presumably one of the primary goals of the Christian preacher, for it is more permissible to speak abstractly, as the preacher will, than to point to individuals and to call them weak.

[* The proper role of government, for the strong-in-faith Christian, is to provide information which suggests the course to take which would be generally uplifting to the entire society, e.g., traffic signs, and which then the Christian would comply with in that same spirit. For example, a strong-in-faith Christian would heed generally the moral authority of the state in prohibiting movement of traffic at a red light, but would not feel obligated if there were no danger, e.g., in the absense of other traffic. The reasoning being this: the system of traffic lights facilitates the efficient movement of traffic for all of society and therefore should be complied with for that reason. But there would be no obligation to comply with traffic laws if there were no other traffic, i.e., if there were no real reason to, e.g., if one were the only car in sight.]

And when we go into chapter 15 we find a common thread, for Paul immediately begins with the obligation of the strong for the weak, i.e., we are all members of the fold and we are our brother's keeper, i.e., that is an integral aspect of the Christian community.

Appendix

Why Paul's opinions are included in the Christian scriptures.

One of the more telling arguments of the weak in faith can be expressed in this way: although Paul often gives us a ruling without the reasoning behind it, i.e., without showing how it follows from the Golden Rule, since the Holy Spirit saw fit to include it in the scriptures we may conclude that we are to assume that a properly enlightened Christian would be able to make a like derivation, and so therefore we are obedient to God when we comply with what Paul says, at least until we understand matters better so as to make the same deduction as Paul obviously does.

But this is a sheer axiom, * for there is another axiom which may be utilized just as well, namely that the Holy Spirit wanted subsequent readers of the gospel message to understand how the first Christian sought to express the Golden Rule in their own lives, and expects all other Christians to seek with equal fervor to find a similarly valid and honest derivation of their own behavior from that same Rule, even if their understanding of causes and effects, e.g., medicine and poisons, varies from that of the first Christians and so even if their actual behavior varies to that extent. And so, according to this axiom, there is not the least intention of the Holy Spirit that we emulate the first Christians with regard to the actual deduction of behavior, but only with regard to the form of the deduction, i.e., that we all (early and latter day Christians) seek earnestly to apply the Golden Rule to all areas of our lives.

[* An axiom is a principle for judging and which is to be accepted (or rejected) entirely gratis.]

And this latter axiom, which we might call the strong(-in-faith) axiom, is far more consistent with the unusually plain language of our Lord in Matthew 7:12, where he is not speaking in figures or in parables, but directly to the world at large, i.e., to the multitudes assembled on the mount.

This "strong" axiom, by the way, fits in nicely with the general Wesleyan conception, for now we can see that the scriptures give us the first history (and also the constitution = Golden Rule) of the Christian community, and which continues through the lives and acts of the subsequent saints (which can correspond to tradition, e.g., Francis of Assisi and John Wesley) and continues on into our own lives (which will constitute our own, personal experiences). And to cap it all: the Golden Rule, the foundation of the Christian ethic, is also the plain-talk, humanly-oriented expression of reason itself, when practical, i.e., when directed toward actions, and is called (by Immanuel Kant): the moral law. Briefly then: reason gives us the Golden Rule; this validates the Christian doctrine morally (but not historically, for this is given via revelation and is reported in the scriptures); this leads to the experience of the saints over time (the tradition); and this connects our own, personal experience today then historically and morally with that first scriptural account.