What does it mean that the weak person eats only vegetables (Romans 14:2)?

(Vv. 1, 2). The weak in the faith, then, are not to be shunned; they are to be received. Nevertheless, the reception of such is not to be used for the determining of mere questions. The one received must not think that his reception involves the reception of his particular views as to meats or days. Furthermore, those who receive are not to take occasion by receiving one with a conscience as to these things, to interfere with his conscientious convictions before the Lord. One believes that he may eat all things; another, that the Apostle describes as weak, believes that it is right to eat herbs only.

(Vv. 3, 4). The Apostle instructs us that, in such matters, there is to be mutual forbearance. For this he gives three reasons, First, God has received both, the weak and the strong. His reception of us did not depend upon our eating, or not eating, certain meats. Secondly, in such matters, to our own Master we stand or fall, and we are not to judge another man's servants. Thirdly, the Lord is able to sustain us and make us to stand, even if, in such matters we are weak in the faith.

In all likelihood, this difference of attitude arose, at least in part, from the fact that in the assembly in Rome there were believers from Jewish as well as Gentile backgrounds. Those from a Jewish background would have been used to abstaining from unclean food (Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) and would have experienced difficulties in realising their Christian liberty. Their mindset was that the Jewish dietary laws were one of the things that defined who they were: the people of God as opposed to the ‘dogs’ (similar to Peter in Acts 10:9–16). In addition, some may have had additional concerns which led them to abstain from things that, in themselves, were not unclean (such as wine or meat in general, v. 21). Such scruples might have been based on other considerations, such as the question of whether certain foods might have been sacrificed to idols before being sold.

At first sight, what could be less important than differences in eating habits? Why would the Apostle Paul take an interest in this topic and why would the Spirit lead him to devote such a significant section to it in this letter? The point is that it was not merely a question of eating habits but there was a danger that this matter might affect brotherly relations between believers – and even their ability to fully enjoy their relationship with God in praise and worship. Verse 2 says: ‘Let not him that eats make little of him that eats not; and let not him that eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him’. There were two groups, each inclined to act in a way that was not brotherly: those who felt free to eat (the ‘strong’) were in danger of despising those who didn’t (the ‘weak’). The weak, in turn, were in danger of judging the strong.

Romans 14:1. — By "him that is weak in the faith," is not meant one who would trifle with sin (such as drunkenness, etc. as it is often applied), but a believer who, from legal prejudices, was scrupulous as to days, meats, etc. The question is of things ritual, not moral.

The question concerning brethren who were weak in faith, how they are to be treated by those who are strong is now taken up. Those weak in the faith had not the complete knowledge of their position in Christ, though they knew Christ and loved Him. They did not realize that certain observances of days, or abstinences from meats and drinks, could not affect their salvation in any way. There were scruples and conscientious difficulties, as there are still among God's people. One believeth he may eat all things, he knew his full Christian freedom--another who is weak eateth herbs. How are these two to treat each other? Were they to criticize and condemn one the other? "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him." The weak in faith are to be received, but not to doubtful points of reasonings; these questions are not to be brought up for discussion, or worse, to make them a test of Christian fellowship. Judging a brother, or condemning him on such matters is forbidden, for inasmuch as God hath received him, he is the Lord's servant and not ours. The rebuke is "who art thou that thou judgest another's servant? to his own Lord he standeth or falleth." More than that, the Lord in His gracious power shall keep him in all his weakness. He bears with him, "the Lord is able to make him stand." Each is responsible to the Lord. Each does it as unto the Lord. No one lives to himself, and no one dies to himself, we are all the Lord's. There is also a day coming when we all must stand before His judgment seat and then He will judge, who knows the secrets of every heart. Therefore we must not judge. Every one, as stated in all these cases, should be fully persuaded in his own mind and should not judge another, but look forward to the judgment seat of Christ.

The Apostle refers to two matters of this character — the question of eating, or refraining from eating, meats, and the question of observance, or non-observance, of certain days. Such questions very naturally had a prominent place in the Apostle's days when so many of the converts were from amongst the Jews, who would find it difficult to rid their minds of the prejudices formed by their ancient religion in which so much was made of meats and the observance of days. The Gentile believers would more readily leave such things behind, seeing that the idolatrous systems that they had been connected with were wholly false.

If one then eats freely with a good conscience, let him not dare to despise one who feels bound to a vegetarian diet — nor indeed let not the latter judge the former. It would be shameless to make a show before the other, or to seek to put one another in a wrong light. Certainly one must not be allowed to impose his conscience on the other.

Undoubtedly then he who believed that he may eat all things is far more right in thought than he who makes a point of eating herbs. Still there was no ground in such prejudices or in their absence for making little of the weak and for judging the strong; for there was a double danger of fault — to him who knew his liberty, of despising the scrupulous; to him who was scrupulous, of judging censoriously the free. But such weakness is no more folly than such strength is laxity; even as divine love is always holy while always free. God has received the believer; and this is said emphatically of him who was judged licentious by the weak; as the brethren on the other hand are called to accept, but not to the determination of controversial questions, him that is weak in the faith. How much ignorance the Lord bears with in the most intelligent! "Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls." He beautifully adds (in answer doubtless to many a bitter anticipation of what would be the end of their liberty) "and he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand." For the strong have no strength of their own, but grace will hold them up. Would we wish it otherwise, if it could be? Do we not delight that all is of Him?

But no such method is followed. This is so much more surprising as Paul makes it quite clear which view is the right one. He says: ‘I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself’ (v. 14). And: ‘But we … that are strong …’ (15:1). Paul identified with those who understood Christian liberty in matters of eating and drinking. The weak were not in the full enjoyment of the truth and, no doubt, this is why they were not to be asked to decide difficult questions (14:1). But it wasn’t simply a matter of explaining to the weak that Christian liberty includes the liberty to eat all types of food (with the exception of blood and things strangled, Acts 15:29). Paul’s primary question is not ‘Who is right?’ or even ‘What is right?’, but: ‘How can we deal with our brethren in a Christian and Christ-honouring way?’ For the strong brother this will go to the question of whether, and how, he will make use of his Christian liberty and under what circumstances it would be better to forego it. For the weak brother this will go to the question of whether he should judge others based on his own conscience.

Necessarily, the things in which one has to yield here, therefore, are things indifferent. That is what the apostle is speaking of, of meats and drinks and days. It is supposed that on both sides the authority of the Lord is owned. One cannot be really liberal in things that are not one's own. One can give up one's own liberty where it is simply a question of that, and not only we can, but we ought. The supposition here is of religious scruple entirely, not of people without conscience, but of conscience in fact rigidly governed by that which to them, whatever be the truth of it, is the will of the Lord. If a man eats, he eats to the Lord, or if he eats not, it is still to the Lord; if he observes the day, he observes it to the Lord, or to the Lord he does not observe it. Here a question may be raised with regard to the Lord's Day. How does the principle here affect that? It would seem that it does not come into the question; just because the Lord's Day is given us not in the way of legal command, but as a privilege which must be accepted as privilege in order for the observance to be anything really acceptable to God, — not that it is supposed that a Christian could have a scruple religiously about observing the day in this case or on this ground. Religious scruples are the whole matter here and who could scruple to avail himself of the privilege of giving up a day to the Lord, a day free for him to be occupied with his own things, and in such a manner as we find Scripture before us? Question here, therefore, could scarcely be made. What the apostle has before him is, of course, as the meats and drinks show, the Jewish distinction of meats and days, which has passed away, but which, nevertheless, may have a real power over the minds of some who realize that these things were once given of God, and who do not see how He has brought us out of them. Here the principle applies which the apostle has stated elsewhere, that to those who were under the law he became as under the law, "not being myself under the law," as he carefully adds; "that I might gain those that are under the law." These are the questions, but the principle as we have said, the first principle here, is that the conscience is to be before the Lord alone; and that we are to leave every Christian free to act before God. We must not judge. The Lord will do that. "Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue confess to God." It is of the first importance that in every question of conscience this should be maintained.

But there is another motive beside, that of duty to our brother. Our love to our brother is to be a motive. We are to consider what it means to put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in a brother's way. Let it be the lightest thing imaginable, the use of only meat to him unclean, yet our use of it may lead him into that which he has not faith for, and how could love possibly do this? A terrible thing it is to lead a person to act without conscience; that is, therefore, to sin against God. It is a thing which will necessarily have influence, if self-judgment do not come in, upon the whole character of his life and ways. We may be for ourselves doing that which is perfectly lawful to us, (in itself lawful,) and yet the question of a brother's conscience with regard to it cannot be ignored. We are not forced to eat or drink, because it is our privilege to do so. The Kingdom of God does not in its character consist of eating and drinking and such like things, but in "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Here the one who is, while free in his inmost soul, a bond-servant to Christ, — (the apostle puts the strongest term) — will not allow the freedom that he really has to prevent him forgetting that he is bound in every way to use his freedom to glorify Christ with it; this man is "well pleasing to God and approved of men." We are to pursue, therefore, the things that are for peace, and the things that are for edification with regard to others. Think of destroying God's work in another for the sake of a piece of meat; for while the things themselves may be clean, it still is evil to the man who eats while he stumbles over it. "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is weak." You may say, you have faith. Well, he says, but faith is after all the lowliest of things. Faith is realized dependence, is it not? Act in it in lowliness, "Have it to thyself before God;" and remember that, "Happy is he who does not bring judgment upon himself in that which be approveth;" but this is the very thing that the doubter does. He is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." How important is this principle, and in how wide a sphere! How important it is that we should so act in every case as not to induce the weakest or those nearest to us, — where our conduct is apt to have the strongest weight, — to walk without God! It will be no excuse for them before Him, to say that they have followed us. God's will is not so far to seek and not so hard to be understood as to allow of excuse here on the part of any, but the point is clearly especially for the strong, that they are not, by their strength, really to force others into paths, which, because doubtful to them, are necessarily wrong, even though the path looked at in itself may be a right one.

The practice to which brethren are called in such matters is mutual forbearance (Rom. 14, Rom. 15:7), all agreeing in doing what they do to the Lord, spite of difference in judgment of what should be done. Room is thus left for growth in knowledge as the word of God opens to our faith, while conscience meanwhile is respected. "Now him that is weak in faith receive, not to decisions of reasonings. One believes that he may eat all things, while he that is weak eats herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not, and let not him that eats not judge him that eats; for God has received him. Who art thou that judgest another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls; but he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand. One esteems† day above day, while another esteems† every day. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day to [the] Lord regards [it], [and he that regards not the day to the Lord regards [it] not.]‡ And he that eats to [the] Lord eats, for he thanks God; and he that eats not to [the] Lord eats not and thanks God. For none of us lives to himself, and none to himself dies; for both if we live, to the Lord we live, and if we die, to the Lord we die. Therefore, both whether we live and whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this [end] Christ died and lived,†† that he should rule over both dead and living. And why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou too despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, [As] I live, saith [the] Lord, to me shall bend every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account about himself to God." (Ver. 1-12.)