NOW: de:

“Now” connects this chapter to what has preceded it. The law of love will now go into action. Having condemned things (Ro 13:8-14) which are immoral and obviously wrong, like killing, committing adultery, stealing, and coveting, Paul now warns against the danger of condemning questionable matters which are not expressly forbidden in Scripture. (McGee)

Ray Stedman in giving background for a message on Ro14 says

"the favorite indoor sport of Christians...is trying to change each other. As this passage indicates, this has been a major problem in the church for centuries. All through the history of the church, the problem arises from the attitude that most of us share, I am sure, that God is clearly pleased with the way we live -- but there are those others around. They drink beer and play cards; they go to movies; they smoke cigars; they work on Sundays; they wear lipstick; they dance; they play musical instruments; they use zippers instead of buttons. There is an endless list of things that can be included, debatable matters that the church has never been able to settle because of a misunderstanding of the principles that are set forth here in this very passage. We are dealing, of course, with the problem of Christian taboos, all the no-no's of the Christian life that we encounter from place to place, and from time to time. We are facing the question of how much fellowship you can have with somebody who lives in a different way than you do, who does things that you do not approve of as a Christian."

Stedman adds

"I think it is very important to note that this whole section dealing with this problem is part of an extended commentary of the Apostle Paul on the command of Jesus to love one another. This is part of how you love one another. First, love must be serving. That is its nature; love serves. That is why we are given spiritual gifts, so that we might serve one another. Paul emphasizes that in Ro 12. Second, he tells us that love must be genuine. It cannot be phony or sham; it cannot be "put-on" love. It has to be real. Then, in Ro 13, we learn that love must be submissive, especially to the authorities, to the state, and the powers that be, because they are put there by God. And in the latter part of Ro 13, Paul tells us that love must be universal; we owe love to everyone without exception. "Owe no man anything, but to love one another," {Ro 13:8a KJV}. That is a universal debt which we must continually be paying to everyone we meet. Now, in Ro 14, we learn that love must be patient and tolerant of other people's views. It begins with our actions towards someone whom we regard as less enlightened than ourselves. ["weaker brother"] Think about who that is for a moment and then listen to what Paul says to do about it Ro 14:6-9

The weakness is

“in faith,” not “in the faith"...Though the article [te] is present in the original, it does not here signify the faith, the body of Christian doctrine. (Vines)

There is a connection with what has preceded. In the preceding chapters the need of mutual love has been stressed (e.g., Ro 12:9-10, 13:8-10). This is now made to govern the particular subject of the relations between the weak and the strong. At the end of the preceding chapter attention has been drawn to the imminence of the day of Christ (Ro 13:10-11). Accordingly the strong and the weak are to remember that all have to appear before the Judgment Seat. The injunction to put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Ro 13:14) influences the new subject in a twofold way: firstly in the emphasis placed on the authority of Christ (Ro 14:6-9), secondly, in the presentation of Christ as the pattern for believers. (Vines)

ACCEPT THE ONE WHO IS WEAK IN FAITH: Ton de asthenounta (PAPMSA) te pistei proslambanesthe (2PPMM): (Ro 15:1 1Co 8:7-13 ) (weak - 21; 4:19; 15:1,7; Job 4:3; Isaiah 35:3,4; 40:11; 42:3; Ezekiel 34:4,16; Zechariah 11:16; Matthew 12:20; 14:31; 18:6,10; Luke 17:2; 1 Corinthians 3:1,2; 8:7-13; 9:22) (accept - 15:7; Matthew 10:40-42; 18:5; John 13:20; Philippians 2:29; 2 John 1:10; 3 John 1:8-10)

Accept (4355) (proslambano from prós = to + lambáno = to take)  (Used in Ro 14:3, Ro 15:7. Other NT uses to help discern meaning: Ac 18:26, Ac 28:2, Phm 1:17) means more than the KJV translation conveys with "receive". The idea is to receive as one would welcome one into one's home, with the collateral idea of kindness. It's includes the idea of granting one access to one's heart, or to take to one's self. The Amplified Version has "welcome him [into your fellowship]" and Wuest has "be giving a cordial welcome".

Proslambano is in the present imperative which is a command to make this a characteristic of your life. Proslambano is always in the middle voice in the NT which is notable because the middle voice conveys the idea that the subject not only initiates the action but also participates in the results of that action. Here one could translate it "accept to yourself".

So in (Ro 15:7) Paul says draw one another to yourself (that's the idea of the middle voice). Grant them access to your heart. Take them to yourself. Treat them as the closest of friends with the most caring kindness. Believers are to receive one another in the closest of bonds.

How is the one "weak" in regard to faith? ["Faith" is pistis (4102)] He lacks the faith in the freedom that is ours in Christ, instead being bound up in rules and regulations and the need to keep do's and don'ts reasoning that the more rules & regulations are kept the more holy he will be. He is focused on the externals & does not understand that liberty is not license. 

R Kent Hughes says that...

"The one “whose faith is weak” is not weak in basic Christian faith, but is weak in assurance that his faith permits him to do certain things, such as eating meat. These “weak” are to be wholeheartedly accepted—they are not to be accepted with the ulterior motive of straightening them out. There is to be no phony condescension on the part of the “strong,” no hidden agenda, but rather simple, unqualified acceptance." (Hughes)

David Guzik adroitly picks up on Paul's metaphor of "weakness" and suggests 4 spiritual parallels:

"There are many reasons why someone may be weak: they may be a babe in Christ (babies are weak), they may be sick or diseased (by legalism), they may be malnourished (by lack of good teaching), or they may lack exercise (needing exhortation, "coaching")."

Ray Stedman notes that

The NIV is misleading here by translating it as: "Accept him whose faith is weak." This command to the "stronger" brother has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the other individual's faith. It is not talking about someone whose faith is weak. It is talking about someone who is weak in the faith. The problem is doctrinal here. The problem is that he does not understand truth. Remember, Jesus himself said "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine & you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." {Jn 8:31-32}. Therefore, the mark of understanding truth is freedom; it is liberty. That is why Paul calls the person who understands truth clearly one who is strong in the faith, while those who do not understand it clearly are weak in the faith. They do not understand the delivering character of truth.

William Barclay referring to the one "weak in (the) faith" says:

"Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:

(1) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom. He is at heart still a legalist. He sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations. His whole aim is to govern his life by a series of laws and observances. He is indeed frightened of Christian freedom and Christian liberty.

(2) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain things and abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship with God & has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still thinking of what he can do for God more than of what God has done for him."

Ray Stedman continues

 "That is the problem here. It is the problem of a Christian who is not yet understanding fully the freedom that Christ has brought him, who struggles with these kinds of things, and who feels limited in his ability to indulge or to use some of these things -- while others feel free to do so. One is strong in the faith; the other is called weak in the faith. Every church has these groups. We have them right here. Paul puts his finger precisely on the natural attitudes which each group would have toward each other that must be avoided if we are going to accept one another as he says."

Concerning the weaker brother, the stronger brother is not to reject him, ignore him or treat him in a second-class way. Accept him, but not for the purpose of arguing with him. Do not accept him in order to debate with him, but "without passing judgment on disputable matters."

Weak (770) (astheneo) from asthenes = without strength, powerless, state of limited capacity to do or be something) means to be feeble (in any sense), to be impotent, to be weak or to lack strength. Astheneo is in the present tense suggesting that the trouble is not an inherent characteristic, but a condition into which a brother has been brought by outward influence.

The weak Christian does not yet understand and practice freedom in Jesus Christ. Jewish believers, raised under the law of Moses, had a difficult time adjusting to their new life. Paradoxically, one would think they would be the stronger brethren because of their godly heritage & religious practices, but in truth they were just the opposite. Conscience becomes strong as we accept what God says about us in the Word and act on it by faith. However, it takes time for conscience to develop, and we must be patient with one another.

"Weak in faith" does not mean one who is weak in the great truths of the gospel—the facts of faith—but rather it refers to the abstract quality of faith. It means the faith of the weak falters and hesitates about matters of conduct. He does not know what he should do relative to certain things. This one is to be received into the fellowship of believers with open arms. You may not agree with him, but you are to receive him if he is a believer in Jesus Christ. Some things are not expressly condemned in Scripture, but some believers separate themselves from these things. And if they want to do this, that’s their business. These things are not to separate believers. Scofield has a very helpful note—“The church has no authority to decide questions of personal liberty in things not expressly forbidden in Scripture.” (McGee)

Vines says

"he who is weak in faith is so through lack of an apprehension of the liberty into which one is brought who, trusting in Christ alone, is delivered from all bondage and finds freedom in serving the will of Christ as Lord of the life. The weakness is the effect of scruples about details that lie outside the scope of those things which the Christian faith demands. His danger lies in judging the brother who is strong, and in a liability to take offense. The “strong” is one who, while acting conscientiously toward God, is not fettered by scruples of that sort. His danger is twofold, namely, of despising the weak brother, and of setting a stumbling block before him."

Your love (Ro12:9-10, 13:8-10) may be tested more by Christians who disagree with you than by unbelievers who persecute you! People may be difficult, but we accept them in love for the Lord's sake.

BUT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING JUDGMENT ON HIS OPINIONS: me eis diakriseis dialogismon:

Accept him, but not for the purpose of getting into arguments about opinions. Wuest says "not with a view to a critical analysis of his inward reasonings." Do not accept him in order to debate with him or argue about your differences, but "without passing judgment on disputable matters" ("without attempting to settle doubtful points.") Don't pass judgment on the weaker brother in disputable matters where Scripture is not clear.

The Amplified Version says

"not to criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with discussions."

Don't argue with the weaker brother about what they think is right or wrong. The brother who is weak, is not to be received with the purpose of judging his reasonings. The reception of the weaker by the stronger is to be without qualifications, "asterisks", caveats or reservations!

Passing judgment (1253) (diakrisis from diá = between + kríno = distinguish, decide, judge) is literally a deciding between (used only 2 other times in NT 1Co 12:10, Heb 5:14) The basic idea has to do with separating out for examination and judging in order to determine what is genuine and what is spurious.

Opinions (1261) (dialogismos from dia = through, suggesting separation +  logismos =  a reasoning) (cf uses in Ro 1:21, Lu 24:38) describes the thinking of a man deliberating with himself and in context refers to his opinions.

Ray Stedman writes that

"To accept him, of course, means that regardless of where you may struggle with someone and about what you may struggle, you must realize that they are brothers and sisters in the family of God, if they are Christians at all. You did not make them part of the family -- the Lord did. Therefore, you are to accept them because they are your brothers and sisters. And you are not to accept them with the idea of immediately straightening them out in the areas in which they are weak. I think that is a very necessary, practical admonition because many of us love to argue and sometimes the first thing we want to do is straighten somebody out."

Stedman confesses to falling into this trap

"I remember years ago when, after preaching from this platform on a Sunday night, a man came up to me and started talking in a rather roundabout way. He said, "Let me ask you something. Do you believe that two Christians who love the Lord and are led by the Holy Spirit will read a passage of Scripture and both come out believing the same thing?" I said, "Yes, I think that sounds logical." "Well," he said, "can you explain why, when I read the passage you preached on tonight, I believe it teaches there will be no millennium, but when you read it, you believe there is going to be one. What do you think of that?" Being young and aggressive I said, "Well, I think it means that I believe the Bible and you do not." That immediately precipitated an argument and, with several other people gathered around, we went at it hammer and tongs for an hour or so. Afterwards, thinking it through, I realized how wrong I was. I had immediately started arguing. I had to write to that brother and tell him that I was sorry I had jumped on him like that. Of course, he had jumped on me, too, but that was his problem, not mine. I had to straighten out my problem, so I apologized to him and said, "I am sorry that I did not recognize the parts where we agree before we got on to those things over which we differ."

McGee has some interesting comments:

ONE MAN HAS FAITH THAT HE MAY EAT ALL THINGS: osmen pisteuei (3SPAI) phagein (AAN) panta: (14; 1 Corinthians 10:25; Galatians 2:12; 1 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:15; Hebrews 9:10; 13:9)

"One [man’s faith permits him to] believe he may eat anything, while a weaker one [limits his] eating to vegetables." (Amplified)

Paul calls the "liberal party" strong in the faith, while the "narrow party" is regarded as being weak in the faith. The strong member is completely uninhibited by relics of a pagan (or Jewish) past which expresses itself in religious "scruples". The strong brother believes he can eat whatever he wants because he knows that his standing with Christ has nothing to do with what he eats. He understands his freedom in Christ.

Morris writes that

One particular cause of disagreement in the early church was whether a Christian should purchase and eat meat that previously had been sacrificed to pagan gods. This particular problem is one not ordinarily faced by modern Christians, but the principle is the same for all manner of other questionable issues such as smoking, dancing, holidays, dress styles, music genres, etc

R Kent Hughes writes that...

"The “easy” solution to this problem would have been to form two churches: “The Church of the Carnivores” (perhaps not a bad name for some churches I have heard of!) and “The First Church of the Vegetarians. Paul, fortunately, was committed to the nobler, though far more difficult, solution. In the first twelve verses of Romans 14, Paul tells us what we need to know if we are to maintain unity amidst the diversity of the Church.” (Hughes, R. K. Romans : Righteousness from heaven. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books)

Leslie Flynn writes in his book Great Church Fights:

Wide disagreements exist today in our churches over certain practices. A Christian from the South may be repelled by a swimming party for both men and women, then offend his Northern brother by lighting up a cigarette. At an international conclave for missionaries, a woman from the Orient could not wear sandals with a clear conscience. A Christian from western Canada thought it worldly for a Christian acquaintance to wear a wedding ring, and a woman from Europe thought it almost immoral for a wife not to wear a ring that signaled her status. A man from Denmark was pained to even watch British Bible school students play football, while the British students shrank from his pipe smoking.

BUT HE WHO IS WEAK EATS VEGETABLES ONLY: o de asthenon (PAPMSN) lachana esthiei (3SPAI):

Paul is not saying this person is "weak" if he is a vegetarian for dietary reasons. The emphasis in Romans 14 is on those decisions & choices that are being made for religious purposes. So if one is eats vegetables only thinking that this will make them more holy, this would be an example of one who is weak. Alternatively, the weak one may chose not to eat meat, out of fear that it may have been sacrificed to an idol, and is therefore spiritually polluted, not recognizing his freedom in Christ. In Paul’s mind, the weaker brother is actually the more strict one but undoubtedly they would not see themselves as weaker, but stronger because of their keeping of all the "right" rules.

Wiersbe comments that

"The weak Christian does not yet understand and practice freedom in Jesus Christ. Jewish believers, raised under the law of Moses, had a difficult time adjusting to their new life. Conscience becomes strong as we accept what God says about us in the Word and act on it by faith. However, it takes time for conscience to develop, and we must be patient with one another."

Ray Stedman explains that the need for Paul's exhortation...

arises out of the background of the early church in which there was a real moral question about eating meat. Not only were there the Jewish restrictions against certain forms of meat -- Jews did not eat pork, and even beef and lamb had to be kosher -- but it had to be slain in a certain way. So a Jew, or even one raised as a Jew, after he became a Christian, always had great emotional difficulty in eating meat. I still wonder what the Apostle Paul's reaction was when, as a Christian, he was first handed a ham sandwich. Then there was the problem in Rome and in other pagan Greek and Roman cities about the matter of eating meat that had been offered to idols. Some Christians said that if you did that it was tantamount to worshipping that idol. You were no different than the people who worshipped and believed in the idol, and therefore, it placed a stigma on your faith to eat meat that had been offered to idols. Other Christians said, "Oh, no. How can that be? Meat is meat. The fact that someone else thinks of it as offered to idols does not mean that I have to." In these pagan cities the best meat was sold in the butcher shop next to the temple because that is where the sacrifices were sold to the populace, who bought it without any question. So there was a real problem in the church...As in every area of this type, there were two viewpoints. There was a liberal, broad viewpoint that said it was perfectly all right to do this, and a stricter, narrower viewpoint that said it was wrong to do this. It really does not make any difference what you are arguing about if it is in this area that is debatable -- something about which the Scriptures themselves do not speak -- then you always get this two-fold division. You can put many of the modern problems that we have into this category. Should you drink wine and beer; should you go to the movies; should you dance; what about card-playing; what about work on Sunday? Some of the things I have already mentioned fall into this category....Let us be very clear that there are areas that Scripture speaks about that are not debatable at all. It is always wrong to be drunk. It is always wrong to commit adultery or fornicate. These things are clearly wrong. In both the Old and New Testaments, God has spoken, he has judged, in these areas. Christians are exhorted to rebuke and exhort and reprove one another, and, if necessary, even discipline one another according to patterns set out in the Scriptures. This is not judging each other in those areas. The Word of God has judged; it has already pronounced what is wrong...Paul will not give a "yes" or "no" answer about some of these things because God does not do so. There is an area, in other words, where God wants to leave it up to the individual as to what he or she does. And, as we see later on, he expects it to be based upon a deep conviction of that individual. But it is up to them.

Someone has written this satirical poem which sadly is not too far from the truth in many churches:

LET NOT HIM WHO EATS REGARD WITH CONTEMPT HIM WHO DOES NOT EAT: o esthion (PAPMSN) ton me esthionta (PAPMSA) me exoutheneito (3SPAM): (Ro 15:10,15,21; Zechariah 4:10; Matthew 18:10; Luke 18:9; 1 Corinthians 8:11-13)

"Regard with contempt" (1848) (exoutheneo from ek = an intensifying prefix + outhenéo = bring to naught) means to regard as nothing, to despise utterly and here to despise someone on the basis that it is worthless or of no value. The idea is look down upon and even to treat with scorn or ridicule

The "strong" must not think about the "weak" in a disdainful or contemptuous way (cp Ro12:3ff). He must not let himself look down on these people.

Robertson says that...

"One side (the meat-eaters) despises the vegetarians, while the vegetarians criticize the meat-eaters."

It would be easy for the stronger brother who felt free to eat meat sacrificed to idols to look down on the weaker brother who did not feel free as one who was hopelessly bound in legalism. It would also be easy for the weaker brother who did not eat "temple meat" to judge the stronger brother who did -- but Paul says how can the weaker pass judgment on the stronger brethren when God had received them to Himself, despite their consumption of "Mac idol-burgers". Their eating meat from pagan temples did not put a barrier between them and God. So the weaker brother was not to pass judgment on them.

Ray Stedman comments that...

"some of us have who feel that we are free in certain of these areas. We tend to regard those who are not yet free as weaklings, which in some sense they are. But we are not to regard them as deliberately so, as if it is their own fault that they are that way. Thus we get offended when they do not behave as freely as we think they should. This is wrong. Paul says, "The strong must not reject the weak." You must not think wrongly about him. You must not say wrong things about him. You must not ridicule him. Someone has defined a legalist as someone who lives in mortal terror that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself. But we must not think of legalists that way....We must not form little cliques within the church that shut out people from social fellowship with people who have different viewpoints. We must not think of our group as being set free while this group over here is very narrow and we have nothing to do with them....Strength in the faith means more than understanding truth. It means living in a loving way with those who are weak: The truly strong in the faith will never put down those who are still struggling."

AND LET NOT HIM WHO DOES NOT EAT JUDGE HIM WHO EATS: o de me esthion (PAPMSN) ton esthionta (PAPMSA) me krineto (3SPAM): (Ro 15:13; Matthew 7:1,2; 9:14; 11:18,19; 1 Corinthians 10:29,30; Colossians 2:16,17)

Judge (2919) (krino) primarily signifies to distinguish, separate or discriminate and then, to distinguish between good & evil, right and wrong, without necessarily passing an adverse sentence, though this is usually involved. In this context krino means to judge something to be better than something else.

The meat offered on pagan altars was usually divided into three portions: one was burnt in honor of the god; one was given to the worshipper to take home and eat; one was given to the priest. If the priest didn’t want to eat his portion, he sold it at the temple restaurant or meat market, which was usually conveniently located near the pagan temple. So one can see how the weaker brother might be tempted to judge his stronger brother & be reticent to eat "Mac idolburgers", especially if he did not yet understand his liberty in Christ was not license but genuine freedom.

Ray Stedman has some excellent comments writing that...:

"Those who think it is morally wrong for a Christian to drink wine or beer must not look down on those who feel free to do so. They must not judge them. The word "judge" means "to sit in judgment" on them and it involves several things: It involves, first, no criticizing of such people or censoring of them. We are not to go up to them and tell them, "I do not see how you can be a Christian and do things like that." That has nothing to do with being a Christian. Their Christianity is established on grounds other than those. It means no categorizing of such people, no classifying them as carnal Christians or reproving or rebuking them. In these areas we have no rights to reprove or rebuke. The church has no authority in these areas. It means no legislating against them; no imposing of behavioral standards or codes without the agreement of all those who are affected by them. These are areas in which the Scriptures say we are to make up our own minds and we are to go along only with that with which we agree. Now, there are sometimes good reasons for limitations. But they must be reasons which the individual accepts and makes. They are not to be imposed upon him by others, that is the point. What has happened often in the church is that those who are weak in the faith, i.e., those who do not fully understand the freedom in Christ, are the majority party and they often make artificial standards for Christians and impose them on everybody who comes into the church, with the implication that you really cannot be a Christian unless you do these things or do not do these things. That has given rise to a tremendous distortion of Christianity in the eyes of the world. It has given rise to the idea that Christianity is a "do not do something" idea, a "don't" religion. This distorts the freedom that is the message of the gospel. It propagates the feeling that Christianity is a set of rules to be obeyed, and the freedom of the sons of God is denied. The world therefore, gets a totally false idea of what the church is all about. This has happened widely in our day and for the most part, I think, the "narrow party" has triumphed in the evangelical churches. This is why many people will not touch the church with a 25-foot pole, even though they are fantastically interested in the gospel. They see the church as having imposed standards and rules of conduct that have nothing to do with the Scriptures. These are artificial regulations that only the church has brought about."

FOR GOD HAS ACCEPTED HIM: o theos gar auton proselabeto (3SAMI):

"Accepted" (4355) (proslambano from prós = to + lambáno = to take) as in the middle voice (reflexive = oneself) means to take to or with oneself in one’s company. It means to receive to oneself, admit to one’s society and fellowship, to welcome, to receive, to accept, to have as a guest. It means to to extend a welcome, receive into one’s circle of acquaintances.