Romans 14:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

They considered them transgressors of the law or even given to gluttony, since many of them were probably converts from paganism. Therefore the Apostle added, 'for God has received him.' But he did not say this about the one who did not eat, though it would seem the one who ate should be humbled as weak in faith. The Apostle said the opposite, showing by this that the one who ate not only does not deserve contempt, but may himself despise others. But does the Apostle himself condemn the one who eats, you ask? Not at all. For this reason he added, 'for God has received him.' Why then do you speak to him about the law as to a transgressor? God has received him, that is, He has shown His ineffable grace in him and freed him from every charge.

Meanwhile Christians converted from Judaism still could not free themselves from the conviction that certain days possessed a preferred holiness, and that certain Old Testament feasts were binding on all. They also firmly remembered the strict prohibition of the law against associating with Gentiles and being defiled with them by eating various foods declared unclean. When the holy Apostle Paul wrote his epistle to Rome, he found it necessary to offer several special instructions on the matter set forth above. He did this so that love and unity would not be shaken among the Christians there. Rom 14:1-5. The Apostle's general instruction is this: 'Receive the one who is weak in faith, without disputes over opinions,' concerning food and the distinction of days. 'For one believes he may eat everything,' since food, whatever it consists of, does not of itself bring us near to God (1 Cor 8:8). 'But the weak man eats vegetables.' This means a person who has not yet risen to the truly Christian understanding that food and drink in general have no essential relation to morality. So too concerning days: 'One esteems one day above another, while another judges every day alike.' The Apostle bases this general instruction on the following considerations. First, no one has the right to judge another (Rom 14:3-4). 'Let not the one who eats despise the one who does not eat; and let not the one who does not eat judge the one who eats, for God has received him.' That is, God received him into His Church without any prohibitions about food. 'Who are you to judge another's servant? Before his own Lord he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for God is able to make him stand.' The intemperate, who deny the fasts, like to cite these words of the Apostle in their own defense, but in vain. The Apostle is not discussing fasts as a moral and educational measure, or as exercises in abstinence. He is resolving purely dietary questions for those who, out of Jewish superstition, connected a certain defilement with the very foods forbidden by the law, such as pork, hare, and the like.

As an example, the Apostle takes opinions about eating various kinds of food. In this the Roman Christians were probably especially divided among themselves. Those who had come from the Jews could keep the distinction between clean and unclean food, and between what was permitted or not permitted on certain days. Christians from the Gentiles could not keep these distinctions.

Seeing this as a matter in which differing opinions are possible, he first counsels tolerance toward others on this question. He finds that both those who eat and those who do not eat have equally been received by God. Some can eat only vegetables, and others also meat, according to the condition of their health. Therefore there is no ground for mutual condemnations.

Even if there were some ground for condemnation, still a Christian, not being authorized by God for this judgment, must not condemn. The chief point is that this was a matter in which the greatest freedom had then to be allowed. Therefore the Apostle concludes by advising each person to act in this matter according to the considerations of his own mind.

According to Saint John Chrysostom, "many of the Jews who had believed still had a conscience bound by the Law after accepting the faith. They observed strict discrimination in food, because they did not dare to depart from the Law.

"Moreover, lest by abstaining only from pork they fall under accusation, they began to abstain from all meat and to eat only vegetables. They did this under the appearance of observing a fast, not Jewish discrimination in food according to the Law.

"On the other hand, there were others more perfect in faith. They themselves observed no such discrimination in food, and they burdened and grieved those who did observe it by their reproaches and rebukes. They even cast them into despondency."

Concerning the words of verse 5 he later observes: "Here, as I think, the Apostle lightly hints also at fasting. Probably some of those who fasted continually condemned those who did not fast, and the reverse. Or perhaps among those who discriminated in food there were some who observed discrimination on certain days and not on others."

"But the force of the apostolic speech is not in this," writes Bishop Theophan. "It lies in the principle expressed here concerning indifferent matters and things: let each act according to his conscience.

"What has been determined by commandment and established by dogma, hold to and fulfill without delay. It is not so with indifferent matters and things. Here let your conviction and your conscience determine how to act and how to think.

"Only in everything have in view the glory of God, and not self-pleasing, neither pleasing your mind nor your heart."

This is why the Apostle says further: "He who regards the day, regards it to the Lord. He who eats, eats to the Lord." By this he teaches, on the one hand, that all things must be done to the glory of God. On the other hand, he teaches not to condemn because of difference in indifferent matters. This is all the more so because it is unknown with what thoughts and feelings some fast and others do not fast.

It is worth noting that the words of verse 3, "for God has received him," seem more closely to refer to the Christian received by God from the Gentiles. Yet they may also be referred to the Christian from the Jews.

Considered abstractly, 'it is given to man's will to eat or not to eat, and no questions or disputes about this are appropriate. Everything created has been subjected to man's dominion and entrusted to his will' (Ambrosiaster). But, attending to what is in the heart of both groups, he says to one: do not reproach. To the other he says: do not condemn. Whether there is sin in eating or not eating, none of you can say decisively. But in reproach and condemnation there is already manifest sin. Where the greater harm lies, and where it is more evident, there he hastens to avert and cut it off. 'For God has received him,' that is, the Gentile. 'The Apostle continues the discourse addressed to the Jew' (blessed Theodoret). Do not condemn him, O Jew, when God has received him into His grace. God did not make it an obstacle to this reception that he was not under the law, and therefore not under the law concerning distinctions of foods. After receiving him, God placed on him no burden belonging to the law. 'Why do you speak to him about the law as to a transgressor? God has received him, that is, He has shown His ineffable grace in him and freed him from every charge' (Chrysostom). But perhaps the words, 'For God has received him,' apply to both. Let the one who eats not reproach the one who does not eat, for God has received him. Let the one who does not eat not condemn the one who eats, for God has received him. You are both in the grace of God, received into His Kingdom and honored with adoption. Do not drive one another out of this saving enclosure over such trifles as distinguishing or not distinguishing foods. It did not prevent the Jew from being received into grace that he held to discrimination in food. Why do you think this will prevent him from remaining in grace? Nor did the Gentile's freedom in the use of food prevent him from being received into grace. Why do you think it will prevent him from remaining in it? Keep this grace in your heart and give thanks to God. Mutual reproach and condemnation, which produce divisions and dry up love, will sooner drive you from God's enclosure than discrimination or nondiscrimination in food. These words, 'For God has received him,' may be used as medicine against condemnation in general. You condemn a sinner for the sin he committed, but you do not consider what is in his soul after the sin. He has already sighed toward God, been contrite, and wept over the sin. God has again received him into His mercy, yet you condemn him. Do you see what incongruity this is? Therefore never condemn anyone.