The Stronger and Weaker Brother: Another Look at Romans 14

The Bible was not written to address every specific issue of life, though its precepts and principles are universally applicable and provide us with “everything we need for a godly life through” (2 Peter 1:3) so that we can address every issue of life. These “gray areas,” areas which are not inherently sinful and which the Bible has not clearly commanded or prohibited, are open areas; areas which believers are free to choose to engage or not engage. Paul goes to great lengths in Galatians, Colossians, 1 Corinthians, and Romans to defend the Christian’s right to exercise their freedom in these areas. Yet, since these areas are “gray,” believers are forced to interpret Scripture individually and apply it to their specific situations. As a result of personal backgrounds, previous teaching, and perhaps even personal study every Christian develops convictions – positions regarding what they will and won’t allow themselves to engage. These convictions are as varied in intensity and scope as the Christians who hold them. Some of these convictions, and the Christians who hold them, seem silly, unrealistic, and irrelevant to other Christians who don’t hold the same convictions. Some Christians hold their convictions with an absolutism that impinges grace and hold their Christian brothers and sisters who do not share that conviction hostage to their legalism. Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Does the Bible say anything about this?

There are two passages that address the issue of how those who choose to limit their Christian freedom (weaker brother) and those who choose to exercise their freedom (stronger brother) ought to relate to each other: 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14:1-15:1. While 1 Corinthians 8-10 are relevant to the discussion of the weaker and stronger brother, and will be consulted here, Romans 14 is the definitive passage on the issue.

Problem of Interpretation:

The typical reading of Romans 14:1-15:1 leads many Christians to believe that there are those with strong convictions and those with weak convictions in the Church. This is true. Some have very strong convictions about certain things. These convictions lead them to limit themselves in certain areas of life. Others, however, see great freedom and believe they are not violating Scripture or sinning by partaking or participating in these same areas. Many interpret this text from a position of deference to what Paul calls the “weaker brother.” In other words, the whole passage is intended to instruct the stronger brother (the one with more freedom) how he should limit himself so he doesn’t offend or upset the weaker. I believe this is a travesty of interpretation and enables the weaker brother to tyrannize the stronger.

Background to the Issue:

Paul’s treatment of food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10 provides much of the background to the issue he addresses in Romans 14. The Church was in a state of flux. What was once a predominantly Jewish community of Christ-followers, with its generally accepted dietary and social expectations, was rapidly becoming more and more Gentile, without such strict Jewish social conventions. This became a sticking point in the Church. It was such a sticking point that the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) initially intervened and gave some social guidelines to the new Gentile converts to make them more acceptable to the large contingent of Jewish disciples.

In some ways, it seems like Paul could have answered the pertinent questions in just a paragraph. Can Christ-followers buy meat in the Corinthian market area that had been sacrificed at an idol temple and then eat it at home? And, can they, when invited, join in the meals held at the temples by those who had brought sacrifices to Apollo, Venus, or some other so-called god or goddess without engaging in the idolatry of unbelievers? Instead, Paul took three whole chapters to answer it because he was interested in much more than those two questions. He was interested in the kind of community commitments being formed among the Christians in Corinth.  So, he insists that love trumps knowledge. In other words, just because someone knows that the meat can be eaten with a clean conscience doesn’t settle all situations, because there were weak brothers and sisters whose consciences weren’t so sure.

The Issue at Hand:

The issue at hand is not the identification of the weak and strong brothers, nor is it the specific directives Paul gives to each. The issue is the exercise and limitation of the Christian’s spiritual freedom in daily living and how to keep the exercise or non-exercise of that freedom from impinging on the freedoms and convictions of our fellow Christians.

Some Presuppositions to Be Considered:

1.       It is most often presumed that putting a stumbling block before a brother, or “causing another to stumble” refers to doing something which leads directly to any sin on the part of another. Thus, doing something which makes another Christian sinfully angry falls into the category of “causing another to stumble.” This view of the stumbling block will be refuted here.

a.       In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul isn’t talking about people who’d be upset that their narrow understandings were being violated. He isn’t speaking about them being offended in that way. He’s addressing a very real possibility of falling away. These Gentiles had come out of paganism. They remembered well the mystery and ecstasy of those pagan temples brought on largely by the use of drugs and hallucinogenic substances; they could recall the thrill of the celebratory meals; they still had powerful memories of the way moral restraint was often lifted in that environment (including all the variety of prostitutes who were available to fulfill even the most debauched desire).

b.      For some of these Corinthian believers, one smell of that meat, meat that they thought was associated with these other gods, might lead them down a road to their old lives. The “strong Christians” might know that it isn’t a package deal; but these weaker brothers and sisters might be caught up into the whole scene of idolatry.

c.       It’s important to know what he’s saying and equally important to know what he isn’t saying. Both 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14 have been used far too many times to endorse the position of the person with the most rules and the narrowest way. It has nothing to do with that.

2.       “Offense” in Romans 14 particularly is presumed to mean “take personal offense” as in “be offended” or “scandalized.” It is argued, then, that the offense spoken about in Romans 14 is the subjective feeling of being offended by the actions of another, as in “I was offended to see him drink alcohol.” This view of the offense will be refuted.

3.       It is presumed that the large majority of Paul’s exhortations are directed toward the stronger brother. Particularly in verses such as 14:15 and 14:21 where the stronger brother is presumed to bear the brunt of Paul’s exhortation. Thus, it is presumed that it is the stronger brother’s duty to refrain from the exercise of his liberty. Any refusal to do so is considered sin. This view of the direction of Paul’s exhortation will be refuted.

4.       Positively, it is Paul’s concern to protect the exercise of Christian freedom in both directions – liberty to partake and liberty to abstain. Paul’s intent is to protect the stronger brother from the tyranny of the weaker and diligently warn the stronger brother not to ignore the weakness of the weaker brother and draw him into behavior that is contrary to his conscience.

Examining Romans 14:

Romans 14 shall serve as the basis for our discussion because this is where Paul is most clear in identifying that there are strong and weak Christians in this area of Christian freedom – really only dealing with the weakness and stringent lack of liberty of the weak in Analysis of Romans  Corinthians 8-10.

Context:

In chapters 12 and 13, the apostle Paul has begun his sections on the application of the doctrines of salvation that were taught in the previous 11 chapters. Chapter 12 touched on the call to be living sacrifices, the unity of the body, the heart of mercy which does not avenge, and the call to love one’s enemies. Chapter 13 continued with instruction regarding submission to civil governors, and the principle of love as a fulfillment of the law. This principle echoes the words of Jesus as Jesus summarizes the law in Matthew 22:35-40. Love then, as conceived by Jesus and as explicated in Romans 13, (see especially Romans 13:9-10) is shown when one obeys the law of God in behavior towards another.

Analysis:

Verse 1

Verse 1 sets the stage by stating that the issue to be discussed in Romans 14 is an application of the love principle described at the end of Romans 13 to a particular group – those who are weak in faith. The one who is weak in faith is to be welcomed and received into the fellowship of the body, but is not to be a partaker in leadership or consulted on determining matters of right and wrong in questions of doctrine or practice.  The implication is that the weaker brother is unwelcome in such disputes – not out of malice or discrimination, but as an application of the principle of love. His rigidity of life demonstrates that he’s not mature enough to trust his answers in such things.

Verse 2

Verse 2 introduces the problem of Romans 14. Verse 2 opens with the Greek construction μὲν…δὲ (men…de). This construction is a standard Greek construction that would be well translated “On the one hand…on the other hand.”  One the one hand some people think they may eat all things, but on the other hand others think that they ought not to eat meat (by implication, meat offered to idols – cf. 1 Cor. 8-10).  The ones who think that they ought not to eat meat are described as those who are weak, picking up on verse 1.

Verse 3

Verse 3 gives two instructions, depending on which person is being addressed.  The one who is the stronger brother is not to despise the weaker. The Greek word for despise is the verb evxouqene,w (exouthenew). It means “to look at them with contempt or look down on them.” The idea is that the stronger brother, seeing another’s weakness ought not to use that as an opportunity for pride and despising of the weaker, but instead should remain humble himself.  The one who is the weaker brother is given a different instruction – he is not to pass judgment on the stronger brother. The danger is that the weaker brother, filled with false holiness will in his own heart and with his mouth, pass judgment on the stronger brother, who understands his liberty in Christ (cf. Colossians 2:20ff). The warning then is to the weaker brother not to insist on his own standards – in this case not eating meat, as standards which must be obeyed by all. The reason given is that God has received each brother. The “for” refers to the fact that God has received both the weaker brother and the stronger brother ; as opposed to being exclusively a reference to God having received the stronger brother.

Verse 4

Verse 4 provides the reason behind verse 3. Specifically this command is addressed to the weaker brother – Paul repeats the command regarding judgment as the particular sin to be avoided. Generally, there is clearly an application to all. If the weaker brother is particularly to avoid this sin, how much more the mature in Christ? The fundamental reason given is that each one is responsible not for to one another, but to God, and God will judge his actions, since God is his master. Finally, Paul expresses his confidence that as he is a brother (verse 1), he will stand, and not fall, before God. God, having justified, also sanctifies and keeps secure those who are his own.

Verse 5

Verse 5 illustrates and applies the principle of verses 1-4. The example has to do with “esteeming one day above another.” Interestingly, Paul uses the verb kri,nw (krino - “to judge”).” The idea is that each one had been judging others – particularly the weaker brother had been judging the stronger brother. The contrast, however, is that each one is to come to his own judgment about his own behavior. The oft asked question regarding the example is whether “one day” (h`me,ra – hemera without the definite article “the” thus, “a day” in Greek) is about the sabbath-keeping or about the Old Testament feast days. The latter is more likely (cp. Col. 2:16). The specifics of what is meant by “one day” however, are not really salient to the immediate question before us. What is salient is that each person – both the weaker brother and the stronger brother should be fully convinced of his own opinion about his own liberty, so that his own conscience is guarded.  

Verse 6

Verse 6 expands on this exercise of liberty and conscience. Each Christian, fully convinced in his own mind, acts to glorify the Lord in his actions. Remember the context. This is something that the Bible gives liberty to do, against which the weaker brother’s conscience recoils. Again, the reasons for how persons are to treat one another when you disagree about one’s own actions of Christian liberty follow. Please note that nothing so far has mentioned any actions other than one’s own.

Verses 7-9

The fundamental reason that we should be circumspect regarding each other – neither despising nor judging the other’s actions – is that the other person is immediately answerable to God. Whatever way that either individual behaves, he lives not for or to himself, but for and to God. Note that there has been no mention here, yet, of any interaction between the two brothers, other than of watching what the other does. The interaction, so far, is only their attitudes towards each other, and the reactions that they have towards one another, things which Paul will deal with next.

Verses 10-11

Verses 10-11 address both brothers with verbs that repeat the verbs of verse 2. First the weaker brother is addressed: Why, if your brother is exercising what he understands to be his liberties do you judge him? When Paul says “judge” him, he means make a specific judgment regarding the other’s behavior in his liberty – that his behavior is sin. Next the stronger brother is addressed: Why do you pridefully look down on your weaker brother’s unwillingness to partake of a certain behavior – though you know it is within the bounds of Christian liberty? Both will be judged – not by each other, but by Christ. It is Christ who is the true judge, not one another. Paul continues then to declare the Lordship of Christ the true judge (v. 11).

Verse 12

Verse 12 sees Paul continuing to press his point home – since Christ is the judge, be concerned about your own behavior – whether you exercise liberty or not.

Verse 13

Verse 13 sees Paul transitioning to the application for our interaction towards each other, and the part of the text which is most germane to our discussion. Paul uses and inferential conjunction a;ra (ara) at the beginning of the verse. It not only links verse 13 with verses 1-12, but tells us that what is coming is the inference to be drawn from what has preceded. It is often translated “thus,” as we might use “thus” in drawing our conclusion. The exhortation of verse 13 then is inferred from the exhortations and declarations that have preceded – centrally that each one stands before God in his exercise, or non-exercise of some aspect of his Christian liberty. The declaration that Christ is judge (v. 12) was given as the basis to the initial exhortations of verses 1 through 3.

Paul now gives a direct command: “Don’t judge each other anymore.” Given the earlier example, we know that some who would not eat meat were “judging” (using the same Greek verb - kri,nw v. 5) those who felt free to eat meat. Paul says that this passing of judgment – calling someone else’s liberty sin – must not continue. On the contrary – using a fairly strong adversative (avlla alla). , instead of judging someone else’s liberty, have this different attitude: Resolve not to put a stumbling block in the other’s path, nor a “cause to fall.” Interestingly Paul, having declared that we are not to “judge” each other anymore, repeats the verb kri,nw (krino - to judge) in an imperative form, best translated “resolve.” The point is that we are to abstain from judgmentalism, but we must make judgments for ourselves.

The term “stumbling block” (pro,skomma – proskomma) occurs in only six verses in the New Testament. In three verses it is applied to Christ, who is a stumbling block or cause for offense to those who will not believe (cf. Rom. 9:32-33; 1 Pet. 2:8). The other three verses that use the term pro,skomma are found in the context of the weaker/stronger brother argument (cf. Rom. 14:13, 20 and 1 Cor. 8:9). In this verse (v. 13), it is those who judge (the weaker brothers) who are commanded to resolve not to put a stumbling block in the other’s way. In 1 Corinthians 8:7-10, the weaker brother is the one whose conscience is defiled by the meat offered to idols. pro,skomma is found in 1 Cor. 8:9 warning the stronger to be careful, lest they, in the exercise of their liberty, place a stumbling block in the path of the weaker. The stumbling block is not the actions of the stronger brother, but the possibility that the weaker brother might be drawn into behavior that his conscience opposes. Not understanding that the meat is simply meat and that the idols are nothing, the weaker brother might be drawn himself into the temple. However, the weaker, through his weakness, would not just be eating, but eating with an idolatrous heart, believing the idols to have power and the meat offered to them to be special.  Importantly, then, the pro,skomma (stumbling block) is the enticement to follow in behavior, and not the action of liberty.

The final use of pro,skomma is in verse 20 of this text, which we will deal with when we get there. The conclusion from that verse is instructive here, and that is that the evil, or the wrong, is not the behavior of the one who eats from liberty, but the one who eats “with offense.” The idea is that the evil comes in the behavior of the weaker brother who does an action (eating the meat offered to idols) which is contrary to his own conscience. What we see then from a survey of the rest New Testament is that the pro,skomma – the offense – is not the subjective response of the weaker brother to the actions of the stronger brother (the feeling of being offended) but is rather the behavior of the weaker brother as he follows the stronger brother. The offense is doing things that his conscience binds him to think that he really ought not to be doing.

In Romans 14:13 then, we are to read pro,skomma (stumbling block) in a way consonant with the rest of the New Testament usage. All of us, but particularly the weaker brother, the one prone to judge, are not to “set up” stumbling blocks or causes to offense with respect to his brother. The question must be asked, how does a weaker brother “set up” a pro,skomma (stumbling block) or a ska,ndalon (skandalon - hindrance, opportunity to fall, offense) to his stronger brother? The answer is explicitly contrary to the way this verse is often misread. The weaker brother sets up stumbling blocks by seeking ways to be offended – by the tyranny of saying that my offense is to rule over your liberty.

In verse 13, ska,ndalon (cause to fall) is used in a parallel manner to pro,skomma (stumbling block). Ska,ndalon is found more frequently in the New Testament, 15 times in 13 verses.

1.                   Matthew 13:41 – Refers to those things that offend God because they are sinful.

2.                   Matthew 16:23 – Refers to Satanic sinfulness.

3.                   Matthew 18:7-8; Luke 17:1 – Refer to the heart of sin or that thing inside yourself which causes you to sin.

4.                   Romans 9:33 – Christ himself is the offense to unbelieving Israel not that he caused the offense.

5.                   Romans 11:9 – The table spread before Israel becomes a trap / offense to them because of the hardness of their own hearts.

6.                   Romans 16:17 – Those who are enemies to the unity of the church are to be noted and avoided because they are offensive.

7.                   1 Corinthians 1:23 – Christ is the offensive thing / stumbling block to unbelieving Jews; not that he caused the offense.

8.                   Galatians 5:11 – The cross / gospel itself is the stumbling block / offense to unbelievers and is not the offense of the one preaching it.

9.                   1 Peter 2:8 – The offense or stumbling is due to their disobedience to the Word.

10.               1 John 2:10 – The offense is the opposite of love here.

11.               Revelation 2:14 – The offense of Balak was his drawing Israel into sin.

What we see in this survey is that ska,ndalon largely has to do with sin and not with attitude or subjective “offending”. The manner in which Christ himself “causes” to stumble is that he brings out the sin which is in the sinner’s hearts. The responsibility for that sin lies entirely within the sinner, and not at all within Christ, nor within the preacher of Christ. What this does is force us to take a look at how we have normally understood Romans 14:13. The “standard view” is that Paul is addressing the stronger brother, and exhorting the stronger brother not to place in the path of the weaker a “cause for offense” – that is, a cause for the weaker brother to be offended in his feelings by an action of the stronger. Thus, the stronger brother ought to cease exercising his Christian liberty so that the weaker brother might not see those stronger brother’s actions, and have cause for turmoil within his own heart. However, as we have seen, not only is the weaker brother the primary focus (being the one who judges) but neither ska,ndalon (offense) nor pro,skomma (stumbling block) can carry the weight of inconsequential things which cause another to be offended by your actions. Rather ska,ndalon and pro,skomma generally refer to the manner in which righteousness is called sin by the sinful. Thus the idea that the stronger should repent of the exercise of his liberty, because it “caused” the weaker to react with anger or otherwise “take offense” is completely absent from the text.  The question we must answer from the verse, is “Who is setting up the offense?” Who is making this offense stand? In the immediate context it is actually the weaker brother. The weaker brother is being warned against setting up places for himself to be offended by his brother. Paul in other contexts warns the stronger brother, but here he warns the weaker brother.

Verses 14-23

Paul’s argument is born out in the rest of the chapter, verses 14-23, and does not fit the standard reading victimization pattern. Verse 14 - Paul here is laying the groundwork for liberty – uncleanness or sin is about the heart, not about things. The things themselves are not unclean, yet if someone considers something unclean, it is actually unclean to him. Others are not warned off the item, but he is, by his own conscience.

Verse 15 - This verse cuts both ways – the stronger is not to despise the weaker because the weaker is not free to partake of the meat, the weaker is not to “judge” (in the fashion of judgmentalism) the stronger because the stronger does partake. Love allows both to partake according to their own conscience, and does not set up any offense within one’s own heart because of their exercise of liberty. This flows fundamentally from the premise that God is the true judge of all.

Verse 16 - Following from the previous argumentation, neither party is to allow that which is good – either the exercise of liberty or not, depending on the conscience - to be described as evil. This verse completely undoes the tyranny of the weaker brother. The weaker brother may not speak of the exercise of liberty of the stronger as sin. They are not contrary to God’s law, but are inconsequential things. Neither may the stronger describe the weaker brother’s abstaining as sin. God does not require him to exercise all the liberty that is available to him.

Verse 17 - Here Paul adds another reason to the major reason already described (that God is the judge of each man). It is that the kingdom of God is not about food (euphemism for inconsequential things), but about real holiness (according to God’s law) and about peace and joy within the body of Christ, and not about contention about inconsequential things. The tyranny of the weaker brother is really strongly rebuked here. Do not call another’s liberty sin, and do not create contention and offense between brothers over such things.

Verse 18 - Because the one who lives to Christ in either his partaking or abstaining is received by God and approved by men, both positions are to be honored because they are done out of right motivation towards God – serving Christ – and are thus approved by men.

Verses 19-23 - In verses 19 and following, Paul repeats his conclusion. This is what we ought to be doing – instead of focusing our attentions and energies on the ways that we can be offended by the behaviors of others in inconsequential matters, we should accept the other’s position and not declare their good evil, nor allow our good to be called evil by them. Verse 20 commands us not to bring down the church because of inconsequential things – do not take offense by another’s liberty, do not take offense at another’s abstention. Paul repeats the scope of the conversation – inconsequential things – all things are indeed pure, but the one who eats “with offense” does indeed do something evil. Paul is not saying that it is evil for the man who has liberty to eat, he is saying that it is evil for the man who is constrained not to eat, because he eats “through” his own stumbling block. He denies his own stumbling block and eats anyway, denying his conscience.

While verse 20 described what was evil – eating contrary to your own conscience, verse 21 describes what in contrast is good. It is good to eat within the dictates of your own conscience. It is good to neither eat meat nor to drink wine (and don’t let anyone say you are sinning by not drinking wine). The question here is whom is Paul addressing? Is he addressing the weaker brother and reminding him that what he does is good (in parallel to verse 20), or has he shifted the emphasis to say to the stronger brother that it is good for him also to abstain? As we have seen, the abstention of the stronger brother has not been the focus so far, rather Paul has been clear to say that each, eating or abstaining according to one’s own conscience, is equally good and right before God. He has also been clear that neither may call the other’s position or actions sin. There is, however, also the context of love, from chapter 13. Paul will again turn his attention to love as he rounds out this discussion in the beginning of chapter 15. Before he does, however, he reminds us of the central matter, that this is between the individual and God.

Verses 22 and 23 state that whatever position one holds on the eating of the meat, the key is that one’s heart is clear before the Lord in this matter. This matter is truly one of inconsequential things. The joy is in one’s own behavior before God, and not in the concern about what the other one does. However, if someone eats, contrary to his own conscience, then he is sinning against God. In matters of inconsequential things, if for some reason – in this case concern about mingling with idols - a man eats contrary to his conscience, he sins against God.

Romans 15:1

Notice what the context is. 14:23 describes the eating by the weaker brother as sin, nothing else. What then is the “bearing with” that is called for? It is not placing meat before the weaker brother, or leading them to the table to eat this meat. This is not an issue of the stronger brother giving up his liberty to himself eat, but is an issue of not drawing or leading the weaker to eat against his conscience. The stronger is tempted (because of his natural inclination to “despise” the position of the weaker) to press the weaker into partaking. But Paul warns the stronger – don’t seek to please yourself, and fulfill your want to control the behavior of the other. You are free, but he is not, do not force him – by coercion or other means – to a liberty he does not yet have.

Conclusion

We should be reminded, however that one ought to grow up, as one matures in the faith, to a greater exercise of liberty. One should move from being a weaker brother to being a stronger. The weaker brother should get a grasp on Christian freedom in the gray areas of life and move toward the exercise of his freedom. Until then, he is to obey his conscience.

Having worked our way through the problem, the text, and the interpretation, we now see a number of things. The issue is clearly how we deal with differences in what are truly inconsequential things. If the Bible speaks clearly to an issue, it is not an inconsequential thing, but is then one of obedience or disobedience to God’s word. It would thus be outside the scope of this text. This text does not support the contention that the stronger brother is primarily the focus, and is to give up his liberty in order not to offend the weaker brother’s convictions or preferences. Rather both the stronger and weaker brother are addressed in the text, and both are warned that they are not to insist that their view is to be pressed on all in the church. Each one stands before God individually, and Christ is judge of each individually. The issue of the “stumbling block” is not whether a brother is subjectively or emotionally “offended,” or “caused to sin” in any way whatsoever, but is instead the narrow one of whether a brother is pressed or drawn into the specific disputed behavior. Thus, either side can “offend” by insisting that their view must be normative.

Not only are you to give liberty to your brother to either partake or not partake, but you are to support him in his decision. This means that you may not call his position sin, and you may neither judge him nor despise him for his position. We need to distinguish carefully between that which a brother may do, and that which he must do. A brother, whether weaker or stronger, may, from his own love, abandon his behavior – whether eating or not eating, in order to display unity with his brother.  However, neither brother may put compunction on the other, saying that the other must change his behavior to conform to his behavior. This is equally true for the weaker and the stronger.

When we learn the lessons Paul wanted the Church to learn in this text, we gain more freedom. We become free to live according to grace and not legalism. The stronger can give grace to the weaker and not demean his more stringent position on an issue. Similarly, the weaker can extend grace to the stronger by allowing him the freedom to partake or not partake according to his conscience without thinking him sinful or forcing his stringency on his brother in Christ.