Romans 14:2 (Jesus, priests, rituals, moral, reject)

[john313]

Peace,
"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." - Romans 14:2

why does being a vegetarian make one weak of faith? especially since part of the nazarite oath to separate oneself to the Lord (numbers 6) is being a vegetarian.
it seems contradictory to me, but i may be misunderstanding it. thanks for the input.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by john313

Peace,
"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." - Romans 14:2

why does being a vegetarian make one weak of faith? especially since part of the nazarite oath to separate oneself to the Lord (numbers 6) is being a vegetarian.
it seems contradictory to me, but i may be misunderstanding it. thanks for the input.

Interesting, I never came across that in the scriptures, I'll have to ask my husband (he's taking a New Testament class at school and his teacher was formerly a Jew, maybe he'll know something). I was a vegetarian once.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by john313

Peace,
"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." - Romans 14:2

why does being a vegetarian make one weak of faith? especially since part of the nazarite oath to separate oneself to the Lord (numbers 6) is being a vegetarian.
it seems contradictory to me, but i may be misunderstanding it. thanks for the input.

From my understanding it is talking about someone who still isnt sure if its ok to eat all meat. So their faith still isnt strong in this regard, its saying dont judge this person accept them as they are. People may get hung up on different formalitys etc but its not for us to judge them, this letter was written to Christians in Rome, those who had accepted the Atonement Christ made for them - God knows each persons heart and how they regard his Son and the sacrifice he made for them.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:1-4

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Steve

From my understanding it is talking about someone who still isnt sure if its ok to eat all meat. So their faith still isnt strong in this regard, its saying dont judge this person accept them as they are. People may get hung up on different formalitys etc but its not for us to judge them, this letter was written to Christians in Rome, those who had accepted the Atonement Christ made for them - God knows each persons heart and how they regard his Son and the sacrifice he made for them.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:1-4

Good post. I think that you are absolutely right. There's actually an old Church canon, not really applied nowadays, that would have the effect of banning being a vegetarian. This is because refusing to eat certain foods, except as part of a religious fast is tantamount to doubting that all food is clean for a Christian. Of course, as we have a large number of fast days, I spend much of the year as a tea-total vegan, but when I'm not fasting all foods are certainly open to me.

James

[spacemonkey]

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. Romans 14:1-4

To me, the refrences to diet are a metaphor whose message is that that we should not look down upon nor condemn someone elses practices just because they are not the same as yours.

[phatcatholic]

a few catholic commentaries will help here:

Navarre Commentary:

• 1-3. In the Roman Church there were some Christians who were influenced by Judaism to abstain from te types of food forbidden by the Old Law. Others, however, who were "strong" in the faith, knew that Christ had freed them from Mosaic observances such as avoidance of certain kinds of food, and from keeping to the Jewish calendar--sabbaths, full moons and other festivals. This second group were confirmed in their practice by the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 15:28-29). They regarded the others, who were fewer in number, as "weak" because they were tied down by the Mosaic precepts: they fasted on certain days, abstained from meat, did not drink wine, etc. (cf. Col 2:16, 20-22).
  
  In themselves there was nothing wrong with those practices; for example, Eusebius the historian (Ecclesiastical History, 23, 5) tells us that James the Less, the bishop of Jerusalem, himself abstained from wine, spirits and meat , as a personal mortification (cf. also the rules for Nazirites: Lk 1:15). However, the "weak" were scandalized by the freedom of spirit of the others, and regarded them as sinners. And the "strong", for their part, looked down on the "weak" and did not mind causing them scandal. Both sets of Christians were sinning against charity. St Paul addresses them both ina fatherly way, exhorting the weak not to falsely judge the strong, and appealing to the strong not to despise the weak. In theory, the strong had right on their side, but in practic the main thing was not to give scandal (cf. v. 21 and 1 Cor 8:7-13).

Ignatius Study Bible:

• 14:1--15:13 Paul's final instructions are directed oward two groups in the Roman Church, called the weak (14:1) and the strong (15:1). The weak are mainly Jewish Christians; the strong are mainly Gentile Christians. Apparently the strong have a condescending attitude toward the weak that needs correcting.
  
  14:1 weak in faith: A Jewish Christian minority who maintain a distinctive vegetarian diet (14:2), observe the liturgical feast days of Israel (14:5-6), and may adhere to the food laws of the Torah (14:14).
  
  The behavior of the weak, especially their abstinence from meat and wine (14:21), is probably a conscious imitation of biblical heroes who avoided Gentile foods while living in Gentile lands. Among those who maintained this type of Diaspora diet were Tobit, Judith, Esther, and Daniel (Tob 1:10-11; Jud 10:5; 12:2; Esther 14:17; Dan 1:8; 10:3).
  
  14:3 pass judgment: To inflate difference of opinion is to cause division and strife. The strong should accommodate the weak without gloating over their Christian freedom or looking with contempt on them. In this case, preserving peace is a higher priority than the exercise of liberty. The weak and the strong are answerable to God, not to each other (14:10-12).

Jerome Biblical Commentary:

• 1. welcome the man who is weak in faith: Paul thinks of a scrupulous Christian whose judgments are based on an insufficiently enlightened faith. Such a man has not fully grasped what is meant by uprightness through faith and immaturely seeks to justify himself by additional practices that are only a form of fringe Christianity. and yet, even he belongs to the Christian community.
  
  without debating minor points [with him]: Lit., "not for the purpose of quarrels about opinions." The scrupulous brother should be welcomed as God would welcome him; he should not be subjected to idle disputes, for such debate undermines confidence on all sides.
  
  2. [only] vegetables: Paul's first example involves a food-taboo. While the "strong" eat of everything, the "weak" eat only vegetables, perhaps because of their pre-Christian background (cf. Dn 1; Jdt 8:6; 1 Cor 8-10). But once it is seen that such an issue is not bound up with the essentials of faith, the obligation of mutual charity becomes clear. Each must accept the other as God would.
  
  4. to criticize someone else's servant: The "weak" Christian is addressed; he is warned that the person he would regard as lax is actually a member of God's household. God alone, as that man's master, will judge his failure or success. From God comes both the acceptance of the "weak" and the status of the "strong."

i will provide the commentary from Fr. William G. Most in a subsequent post

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

Fr. William G Most, Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, Chapter 8: "Letter to the Romans"

• Summary of Romans, Chapter 14
  
  He asks them to treat as brothers or sisters those who are weak in faith. He advises not to try to reason them into a sensible position. For some have faith such that they think everything is all right to eat -- there are no unclean foods. But the weak one thinks only vegetables are permitted. Again, the one who understands that everything is all right to eat must not scorn the other. God accepts the other. Really, who are we to condemn someone else's servant [God's]? It is the judgment of the Lord that counts for that weak one. The Lord will make him stand.
  
  Some judge that there are certain days when they must make certain observances -- but others, we, judge every day is proper.
  
  It is essential that each one not act against his conscience. For the one who does unnecessarily observe certain days, does it thinking the Lord so wills. Again, we who eat all things do so for the Lord, and give thanks to God. But the one who limits his diet does so thinking the Lord wills it, and gives thanks to God. No one of us lives for self or dies for self. Whether living or dying, we belong to the Lord. Christ died and came back to life so He can be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
  
  So who are we to condemn another brother, or scorn him? All of us must stand before the divine tribunal. As God said through Isaiah: "As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bend to me, every tongue will report to God." So then each of us will have to give that account. Hence we should not keep on judging/condemning others, but instead, decide not to cause scandal to them. We know we are certain in the Lord Jesus that no food is unclean in itself. But if someone considers it unclean, it would be wrong for him to eat it. So if we scandalize a brother by food, we are no longer living according to love. We must not for the sake of food destroy a soul for whom Christ died. We must not let our Christian freedom be ill-spoken of because it results in scandal. The kingdom of God does not depend on freedom in regard to food and drink -- what does count is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God, and people approve him.
  
  So we should cultivate the things that pertain to peace, and to spiritual help to one another. We must not destroy God's handiwork for the sake of food. Yes, all things are clean, but can be evil to one who eats them in scandal. It is right not to eat meat or drink wine, or do anything at all which scandalizes a brother.
  
  So this knowledge that we have about foods and similar things we must use for ourselves and before God. But we must not flaunt it before others in such a way as to scandalize them.
  
  Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself for a thing he has decided to do. But if someone acts in doubt about the morality of what he is doing, if he eats in that state of doubt, then he is condemned, even though there was nothing wrong about the eating in itself. But because he acted in bad faith, he is condemned. Anything that is done in bad faith is a sin.
  
  Comments On Chapter 14
  
  We are not able to determine precisely what sort of problem persons Paul has in view here, though we can know some things about them. And we can know the principles involved clearly. They are "weak in faith." Really, one who has strong faith, who believes in the protection of Christ on His Church, will have no trouble accepting the decisions of the Church that no food is wrong to eat in itself, and that there are no days on which by their nature we must carry out certain rituals. If people were really logical, and then accepted most teachings of the Church, but rejected a few, we could and would say: It must be something other than faith that leads them to accept the things they accept. But as it really is, people are not always consistent and logical. And so in one sense we can say these people lack faith (on the assumption that they are being logical), and in another sense (viewing them more realistically) we would not say that. Paul here is talking in the same pattern as that we see in the Epistle of James 2:10: "Whoever keeps the whole law, but offends on one point, is guilty of [violating] the whole law."
  
  So, speaking abstractly, Paul can say these persons are weak in faith, but he also knows that concretely they are not logical, are in the grip of past habituations, and so he says that God is willing to accept them. He does not mean that God is objectively pleased with their errors, but it does mean that as long as they do not act in bad faith, He will accept them.
  
  The psychology involved is the same as that which we saw in First Corinthians, in Paul's long discussion of foods sacrificed to idols. There he said that an idol is nothing; nothing changes nothing; so in itself it is all right to eat such food. But he sees a danger of scandal: suppose you are invited out to dinner, and at table someone says that the meat has come from a temple sacrifice. At once Paul says: Do not eat it. We might think he would give instruction: "Tell them Paul says it is all right to eat." But no, he knows that at least in general, they will not be able to internalize that idea. They have grown up with the belief that food is changed by being offered in the temples of idols. If by social pressure we would force them to eat it in bad faith, that is, in the belief it is sinful, then there would be a sin, not because the food was wrong, but because it is wrong to do what one believes is contrary to morality.
  
  At the end of this chapter Paul goes even farther. He says that if someone acts in doubt as to whether a food is licit, for example, then he will sin by eating it, because he is willing to violate the law by doing something that at least is likely to be a violation.
  
  May we turn this around and say: "As long as I think it is all right, it is all right, even if the Church says otherwise?" Not at all. We are obliged to form our conscience according to the teaching of the Church. So objectively we would be wrong in going against the Church. We say objectively, because in a time of immense confusion, with false teachers so often found, even priests, telling people that contraception, for example, is permitted -- in such a confusion someone, while objectively wrong, may yet be subjectively in good faith.
  
  To give scandal is to do something that either is sinful, or looks sinful in such a situation that it will likely lead another into doing what is sinful, or what he is convinced is sinful. In First Corinthians, Paul pleaded eloquently and at length. He does so more briefly here, but still uses the most telling argument: Are you going to eat meat in a situation where that will lead another soul into spiritual ruin? Christ died for that soul! Can you not give up meat on some particular occasion?
  
  The persons Paul has in mind here are not the same as Judaizers, for although they thought some foods were unclean, they did not go so far as to reject all kinds of meat.
  
  We note further: Paul here is dealing with a concrete situation in which some cannot form their consciences rightly in regard to foods and days of observance. He would not have any objection to giving up food, or praying on the Lord's day when one does it not as a result of an unfortunate mentality, but as a result of the commands of the Church, and the command of Christ for penance. Paul himself fasted often, as we see in 2 Corinthians 11:27. And we know historically, e.g., from the Didache, that the early Christians did fast much.

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Scuba Pete]

This is simple stuff folks...

Acts 10:9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. NIV

Here we are RELEASED from all dietary laws. We were actually released from this on the cross, but the Apostles just didn't "get it".

Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." NIV

Here we are a scant five chapters later, and it is apparent that the apostles are STILL hung up on dietary laws.

I Corinthians 8:1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God.

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

7 But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. NIV

Now, the REAL teaching is making it through. Meat sacrificed to idols means NOTHING. But not everyone understands that. Can you see how the Apostles have GROWN in their faith? They went from FORBIDDING something to encouraging disciples to participate. Wow!

I Corinthians 10:23 "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."

27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake— 29 the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. NIV

Now we have some very VALUABLE background for Romans 14. There was a reason they mistakenly saw that those who ate meat were more spiritual. They took the teaching and sorta kinda missed the point. But all of us are GROWING in our understanding of God. Even the Apostles.

[may]

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU...Acts 15;28-29...... yes i agree with the last post , only the necessary things are the things to abstain from. things sacrificed to idols. blood, things strangled which havent had the blood drained out, and fornication in a litral or a spiritual way. so if we fancy a nice big rump steak with chips enjoy