Lonang Commentary on Romans 14

Rom. 14:1-5. As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

The Sanctity and Law of Conscience

Back in chapter 2, we defined the conscience as the laws of God partially written on our heart. Every human being has a conscience, which is imparted at birth – it is innate, not learned. Thus, the human conscience is itself a part of the natural creation. People are created by God, the universe was created by God, and He is the author of both. It is no surprise, then, that the conscience (in its nascent form) and the creation should fully agree with each other.

For this reason, some people conceive of the conscience as the voice of God speaking to us. I don’t mean an audible voice here – but when we encounter various situations, feelings or thoughts of right or wrong (or guilt) will rise up within our minds, because God put them there. For this reason – because God is the author of the conscience – the conscience is sacred. It is to be listened to and respected, not ignored or suppressed. The conscience is also – because it reflects the image of God in every person – something that we must respect in others as fellow human beings who also carry God’s image in them.

In these verses Paul refers to those who are weak in faith, but the context (quarreling over opinions, passing judgment on the choices or beliefs of another, and being fully convinced in one’s own mind) makes it clear that he is talking about fellow believers whose consciences speak to them differently. For the reality is that although every infant is born with an essentially equivalent conscience, every person immediately begins going through separate life experiences which shape that conscience, so when two people reach adulthood, their consciences may be very different.

Now let’s take these basic principles or laws of conscience to their logical conclusion. First, because the conscience is sacred (God-given), it is inviolable. Which is to say, since the conscience represents the voice of God within us, to go against that voice of God (i.e., to violate one’s own conscience) is a sin. If the conscience is a knowledge of God’s laws, then to violate conscience is to violate God’s laws. A violation of God’s laws is the very definition of sin (i.e., a moral wrong). Therefore, there is never a right way to violate your conscience. Violating your conscience is always wrong. There are no exceptions.

Second, we know that God knows our innermost thoughts, and will hold us accountable for them in the final judgment. This is a fairly common theme in scripture. For example, “no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” Heb 4:12-13. What we must also acknowledge is that this jurisdiction or authority is exclusive to God. Men are neither authorized, nor capable, of knowing or judging the thoughts of any other person. “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him?” 1 Cor. 2:11.

Since God has exclusive jurisdiction over the heart and mind, the conscience is not subject to the jurisdiction of men, which is to say the conscience is free. This is what is meant by the liberty of conscience. And this freedom is absolute. It is absolute in the sense that our conscience is nobody’s business but our own. Period. We don’t owe any one a duty to think a certain way, we are not accountable to any one for the way we think, and no one is actually capable of knowing what we think in any event unless we tell them.

This law of the conscience, then, rests on these fundamental principles:

1. The conscience consists of the laws of God written on our hearts (or the voice of God speaking to our minds).
2. Each person is responsible for his own conscience (no one else for you, and you for no one else).
3. The conscience is sacred and inviolable (for anyone to violate their conscience is sin).
4. Everyone’s conscience is absolutely free as a God-given right.
5. Following one’s conscience is the primary means of exercising self-government.

Rom. 14:6-12 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

Our Accountability to God

This law of the conscience leads directly to the conclusion that we neither have the ability, nor the right, to judge the thoughts and motivations of another person. Each person will stand before God for judgment on their own, and our accountability, therefore, is to God alone and not to each other. In other words, in our interactions with fellow believers, the foundational principles are mutual respect and liberty. We each have liberty to make our own choices before God, and we should respect each person’s choices.

And the fundamental assumption this is all based on is that we are talking about non-essential matters. A common saying accepted by believers since the early 1600’s is this: “In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity.” I suggest the purpose of Romans 14 generally is to instruct us how to relate to each other regarding non-essential matters. Paul is not here talking about false teachings, doctrinal errors, immorality in the church, or such things. He is talking about matters which are in themselves indifferent.

Unfortunately, Rom. 14 is often interpreted in a way which severely undercuts the rights of conscience. It is one thing to say the conscience is free from external coercion, part of God’s reserved jurisdiction over the heart and mind, and not any part of the power of civil government. It is quite another thing to say, as many would have us believe, that as part of our religious duty to God and love for our neighbor we ought to give up the sole, exclusive and absolute right of conscience for the benefit of others. However, this is a gross misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Remember, it is God who set up the law of conscience, made the conscience sacred, inviolable and free. Plus, it is He who made the conscience free from any outside constraint. So as a starting principle, God will never countermand His own laws, or undermine the liberty which He has given us. If I am correct in describing the law of conscience, then a violation of the conscience is never justified. God never expects us to violate His laws (or His voice) as a means of fulfilling His will.

Notice that the discussion by Paul in Romans 14 so far only concerns two indifferent behaviors, namely, whether to eat meat, or to observe special days. Apart from the laws of ancient Israel (which neither Gentiles nor the Church are required to observe), whether to eat certain foods or observe special days are non-essentials as far as the laws of nature and nature’s God are concerned. For the most part, they are matters about which God has neither required nor prohibited specific conduct, and people are free to do as they please in the course of their own self-government.

There are some possible exceptions. The first being the prohibition of eating or drinking blood in Gen. 9:4, which I assume is not really at issue here. Secondly, Paul’s consideration of eating meat is probably not related to God’s command to eat meat in Gen. 9:3 either, but is far more likely to relate to eating meat offered to idols. But even in this case, the rule of liberty prevails. “Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence,’ and that there is no God but one.’ … However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” 1 Cor. 8:4,7.

Or, as Paul says in another place,

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. … For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 1 Cor. 10:25-27, 29b-30.

In other words, these are matters of individual discretion, and where there is discretion we have liberty. This is the clear assumption of the text as a starting point. It is twice confirmed later on in the chapter (in vv. 14 & 20) that these are matters in which nothing is unclean, therefore any decision regarding them can be honoring to God.

Given this backdrop, how are we to then govern ourselves? The rule of conduct (v. 5) is that “each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” This rule is implicit in vv. 12 and 22 as well: we will each give an account to God for our convictions. Thus, in areas of liberty (i.e., non-essentials), the rule is one of personal conscience. As long as each person follows his own conscience, our conduct will bring honor to God (v. 6). Rom. 14:22 says, “Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves,” which is essentially a rule of conscience. In other words, if you are true to your conscience when you approve something, you will not feel guilty about it (pass judgment).

The text of Romans 14 thus far is a straight up admonition to biblical individual self-government: 1) each person is governed by their own conscience; 2) no one should think less of another’s decision to act in a different manner than he has chosen (i.e., no one should judge another’s conscience); and 3) this is honorable in the sight of God. So far so good. Now for the wrinkle.

Rom. 14:13-17. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Stumbling Blocks Notwithstanding

With verse 13 the concept of a stumbling block is introduced. We must take care not to force an interpretation which puts anyone in the position of violating either their own conscience, or the conscience of another. If the conscience is truly sacred, then the last thing God would ever call anyone to do is to violate anyone’s conscience, including their own. Further, we must interpret the second half of the chapter to be consistent with the first half, for God is not the author of confusion.

First, it helps to know what a stumbling block is. It is not, as many suggest, merely a personal offense. The text, in fact, never uses the word offense, so there is no need to assume that’s what it means. If we take our cue from similar usages in scripture, the meaning of a stumbling block is linked to the stone of stumbling (Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:8), which is a crisis of faith, not a personal offense. In other words, a stumbling block is something that causes another to lose faith, or doubt their faith, or deter them from having faith. Ah, but faith in what? – that is the question. In this context – talking about morally indifferent things – it is highly doubtful that Paul is talking about faith in Christ. All he is talking about right here in these verses is eating and drinking.

Second, I think the stumbling block situation is a very limited case, a type of exception to the general rule of do whatever you think is best when it comes to indifferent things. It is limited to cases involving another believer, and the context suggests it is also limited to cases where you already know that your actions will provoke a crisis of faith in someone else. How often do cases like that come up, really?

What distinguishes the strong person from the weak person is knowledge. This is clearly seen from v. 14: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.” In other words, eating meat or observing days (or whatever), is indifferent under God’s laws. The weak person, however, does not know this, and their conscience – which is not yet mature or fully trained up to recognize when things are truly indifferent – tells them something is wrong, even though it really isn’t. Which is exactly what Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:7 (not all possess this knowledge … and their conscience, being weak, is defiled).

While it is the job of the Church (broadly speaking) to educate believers about the true nature of things, when you and someone else have a difference of opinion in the course of daily life, it is not usually an optimal educational opportunity. They don’t want to be lectured to, and you shouldn’t try to shove anything down their throat (as it were), so often you simply have to acknowledge your differences and show mutual respect (i.e., don’t pass judgment). And that works both ways.

Yet, when you know the subject of your disagreement is in reality an indifferent thing, it will not violate your conscience to voluntarily restrain your liberty, or momentarily waive your right to do as you please, because it frankly doesn’t matter (morally) how you do something which is morally neutral. And so long as you do not bend the other person to your will, they do not violate their conscience either. Everyone’s conscience is preserved, and this is what honors God.

No, it doesn’t mean you always have to defer to others as to indifferent things. God gave you liberty, and you are entitled to use it. Christ did not set us free, only to be enslaved by the preferences of others. Which is exactly what Paul said in 1 Cor. 10:29 (For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience?). As I said, the stumbling block scenario is very limited – it is the exception, not the rule.

Even when this exception applies, deferring to another person’s preference must be completely voluntary (i.e., there can be no moral duty to defer) and is subject only to personal discretion. For one thing, no one can ever be under a moral duty to do something which is morally neutral. For another, there is no ought in discretion, and no duty in being voluntary. Neither can love or respect for another ever be compelled.

Strictly speaking, while we are called to love, there is no duty to love, and the manner in which we discharge our duty to God (and by which we love our neighbor) is entirely discretionary. It can neither be coerced, nor can it be guilt-tripped (i.e., manipulated). Therefore, no one has the right to demand others to defer to their own preference. Being weak in the sense used in Rom. 14 (being a person who lacks knowledge) vests no rights in the weak person. Ignorance is not power over others. No one can rightfully say, “you can’t do that because I don’t like it.”

A stumbling block never arises merely because you exercise your liberty of conscience. No one else has the right to restrict your liberty, and you are never under a duty to curb your liberty. If someone else is offended by the way you exercise your liberty, that is their problem, not yours. A stumbling block only arises if you try to force someone else to violate their conscience in order to conform to yours. Both their conscience and your conscience are equally inviolable.

So the next time you are in a restaurant, your menu choices are not going to be dictated by what other people think you should eat, or what they choose to eat themselves. The way you celebrate holidays (or not) doesn’t depend on what your neighbors or fellow churchgoers decide to do. The rule remains the same, that in areas of liberty (i.e., non-essentials), we are guided by personal conscience.

In any event, God never puts us in a situation where He expects us to violate our conscience, either for the sake of obeying Him, or for the sake of loving our neighbor. The conscience is inviolable.

Rom. 14:18-23. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Sacrificing Faith For Conformity

So far we have discussed the inviolability of the conscience and how it is wrong to try to bend someone else’s conscience to match your own. In these verses, Paul considers the reverse situation, where we allow our own conscience to be violated in order to conform to what others think. In other words, submitting to peer pressure in order to be liked or to fit in with a group.

Let’s break this set of verses down. Verses 18-19 – Whoever abides by his own conscience and respects others enough to let them abide by their own conscience, is doing the will of God and benefits everyone. Verse 20 – Don’t let morally indifferent matters (like what foods to eat) interfere with God’s work among you. Everything is clean – indifferent matters are not inherently right or wrong, so don’t treat them as sinful. It is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats – not that I make someone else stumble by what I eat. Rather, it is wrong to make someone else stumble by what they eat – that is, to make another person violate their own conscience.

Verse 21 – An affirmation not to use social customs or other indifferent matters to browbeat someone else. Verse 22 – The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. In other words, every person’s conscience is personal to them – consciences are non-transferrable and don’t need to be shared with others. What you inherently believe to be right and wrong is a matter between you and God. For the most part, keep it to yourself. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. You are blessed if you don’t violate your own conscience and have no reason to feel guilty about your choices.

Verse 23 – But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. In this context, doubt signifies that you have violated your conscience and feel guilty. If you continue in the course of action that leads to guilt, then you have sinned. Here, condemned’ does not refer to eternal damnation, but merely an act of disobedience.

And finally, whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. In this context, faith’ does not refer to faith in God. Instead, it refers to what you believe is right and wrong, as informed by the conscience. Remember, each person is born with a conscience that comes directly from God. True, that conscience can be shaped by our life experiences, and either sharpened (more attuned to God’s laws) or dulled (made indifferent to God’s laws).

But at root, the conscience, being innate, is not something that has ever been proved. The conscience is an innate sense of right and wrong that we merely believe because of an internal voice in our heart and mind. And on that basis, we assume the conscience is always right – which means we listen to the conscience as a matter of faith. The conscience is not something to be argued with – we either obey it, or disobey it. And if we disobey the conscience, it is a breach of faith, or a crisis of faith, in what we truly believe is right and wrong. In other words, it is sin.

And as I said earlier, verse 23 has nothing to do with so-called total depravity.