In Romans 14 and in 1 Corinthians 6-10 Paul writes instructions designed to regulate the relationship between what is referred to as the strong and weak members of the Lord's church. These instructions were to be followed only when dealing with matters of indifference as Christ and Paul followed them in their ministry. 1 Corinthians 11:1. A different set of instructions were given to regulate differences over matters of doctrine where choices were not allowed. Galatians 1:7-9; 4:8-10.

Who are the strong and the weak in Romans 14 and 15? These adjectives might be used of them only in relationship to the subjects introduced in these chapters. The strong had acquired sufficient knowledge to know what the Lord taught on these subjects. 14:14; Mark 7:14-19; and 1 Timothy 4:1-5. The problem with some of the strong was they held this knowledge in the wrong kind of heart. 1 Corinthians 8:1-3. Thus a strong person in these matters of indifference might be weak, though in a different sense than "weak" is used in Romans 14, in other areas. The weak were the ones who were deficient in their knowledge of the truths about these subjects under consideration. Some of them were overscrupulous and demanded that all the others must be governed by what they stood for. It was not as though they were a weak Christian. Their minds were not settled because they had not learned the truth on these and similar subjects. They might be strong in other areas. I do not think anyone would say Peter was weak in other areas of his ministry when he had refused to eat certain meats in Acts 10:9-20. He acquired new knowledge by revelation and was to proceed without any doubts, v.20. The weak are obligated to follow this pattern. Like Peter, from revelation they are to determine the truth on similar subjects and proceed in their service to God without doubting. The weak did not claim liberty as the basis for their conduct. It was a matter of necessity for a clear conscience to them. Thus "faith" and "doubt" are used in a special sense in this chapter and are the opposite to each other as is seen in v.23. "Faith" has no reference to their belief in Jesus or the gospel except in a relative sense. It means their minds were settled on issues, such as eating meats, and their following conduct would be with a clear conscience. "Doubt" is used in the sense of their minds not being made up as to what their course of conduct should be on this subject relative to the truth. If they did this thing, such as eating the meats under consideration, without being fully persuaded then their actions would constitute sin on their part.

To summarize: The strong were the ones who knew God's will about eating meats, drinking wine, and observing days. The "any thing" in Romans 14:21 refers to any thing in this class of things.. Some want this to include doctrinal matters where we have no choice as to whether we do them or not, but that is not the case here. Doctrinal matters are not in the same class of things. The weak were the ones acting in agreement with their heart without knowing God's will. It would have been sin to them to eat the meat, drink the wine, or not observe the old holy days because they would not he acting out "of faith" or a fully persuaded mind. 14:14, 23.

A denominationalist might put baptism under Romans 14 and say a person may choose to be baptized or not baptized. To them, we are the weak since we contend a person must be baptized in order to be saved. Our erring brethren attempt regulating our relationship with them regarding the use of individual cups, Sunday Schools, etc. by the rules of this chapter. We are the weak to them because we teach the necessity of using one cup on the Lord's Table and forbid the use of women teachers and dividing the assembly into classes. Brethren anywhere might try putting long and short hair, forsaking the assembly, recreational drinking of intoxicating beverages, and a host of other "no choice but obey" doctrines in this category, but they do not belong. These subjects of Romans 14 and related passages all have two things in common: 1. They were a part of the religious lifestyles they had come out of; and 2. They were things alright so far as God was concerned for them to do or not do as a part of their private service to Him. They did not commend them to God and they were no better or worse if they did or did not do them. 1 Corinthians 8:8. Can this be said about baptism or missing the assembly? I do not think so.

The exact reason for their not eating meat is not stated. There are at least three groups that should be considered: 1. Those who were vegetarians and could eat no meat at all such as a former Essenene might do. 2. The Jewish Christian that considered certain meat still unclean as identified in the law of Moses, and 3. Those from a Jewish or Gentile background that might consider the meat in relationship with a pagan idol offering and believed it wrong to eat such meat.

The drinking of wine in v.21 does not refer to recreational drinking. It should be interpreted in light of the subject being brought up again in 1 Corinthians 10:21 where Paul stated, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils." This is in obvious reference to the drink offered to idols in Deuteronomy 32:37-38 and fits the profile of the days and meats having a former religious significance in Romans 14. The sixth verse of that chapter should cause people to shy away from an occasional drink or a bottle of beer when they come in from work and claiming Romans 14 gives them that right. Can you imagine a man coming in from a hard days work, opening a bottle of beer to drink and saying, 'This is to the Lord.'?

The days under consideration were the holy days of both Jews and Gentiles in their former religions. Both had many such days. The Lord's day is not under consideration here. Doing the things commanded on the first day of the week, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, were not optional or matters of indifference. The other six days were excluded for those things. However, if a member desired to devote another day of the week to the Lord there was nothing wrong with that. A key to remember is it was to be regarded as a day "unto" or for the Lord. In other words devoted to religious pursuits. Galatians 4:10 considers this problem in a different light. There it seems they were teaching and arguing that those other days had to be observed in order to maintain their relationship with God. This was similar to what they had done with circumcision which is a subject that would qualify to be governed by the rules found in Romans 14. Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3 because of the Jews which lived there. Titus was not required to be circumcised even though some of the Jews demanded it because, in so doing, they would have been guilty of giving in to false brethren who desired to take away their liberty on this and other matters. Galatians 2:1-5. Both Jew and Gentile were free to be circumcised if they wanted to, but this would accomplish nothing toward their salvation. The truth on the subject is found in Galatians 5:6, "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

The Bible interpreter must be able to make a similar statement about any subject he wishes to be governed by Romans 14. For example, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:8, "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse No one can scripturally state that "Baptism commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we are baptized, are we the better; neither, if we are not baptized, are we the worse." The subject of baptism cannot, therefore be governed by the rules found in Romans 14. Neither can the subjects of not attending church, recreational drinking, gambling, instrumental music in worship to God, use of Sunday Schools, nor individual cups. Regarding the latter, some think, as mentioned above, it is their liberty to use one cup or many cups. According to Romans 14, if it applies to this subject, we who use one cup are the "weak" and those who use individual cups would fall into the "strong" category. Of course, this would require they give up the individual cups immediately according Romans 14:19-21. However, if we say we are the "strong" because we know the truth on this subject then we are required to give up the one cup immediately because of the same verses. Such subjects are not regulated by Romans 14 even though some think using individual cups is their liberty.

Just because a person thinks something is a liberty does not make it a liberty. The context in I Corinthians 6:12-13 indicates that some in Corinth thought it their liberty to commit fornication since doing it fulfilled a function that the body was made for just like the belly was made for food and, also, it was a part of the worship services in the pagan temples they were formerly a part of and participated in. Paul used additional truths to show that this was wrong and they were to therefore flee fornication. So, a person just saying something is a liberty does not mean you must apply the rules of liberty found in Romans 14 to that subject. The Lord willing, in the next issue we will consider these rules of liberty found in Romans and the Corinthian epistles. Note: Brethren everywhere need to read this and carefully consider it. DLK-OPA.