Over the last couple of days we have been clarifying the context of the conflict Paul addresses here and the identity of each group in the conflict. Now lets begin diving into the text to see his argument unfold.
Romans 14:1-12
1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 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. 4 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.
5 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. 6 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. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 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. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 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; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Paul makes explicitly clear that this is a matter of "opinion" and the Christians should not quarrel over it. This immediately puts it outside the categories of essential doctrine and ethical imperatives. The one who eats should not "despise" the one who abstains whereas the one who abstains should not pass judgment on the one who eats. He makes clear that God has welcomed the one who eats, further confirming that the one who eats is the Gentiles who are now a part of the people of God. His basis here is in the fact that each person will answer to their "master"—the Lord. The "stand and fall" language likely refers to the end, when they will stand before the judgment seat of God and He will determine their salvation.
The argument in vv. 5-9 is actually quite similar to the previous paragraph. Whether they eat or abstain, practice the sabbath or not, they are doing what they are doing to honor the Lord. Since they then belong to the Lord and what they do is out of honor to him in this option matter they should not pass judgment on one another. We should leave that to God's judgment (v. 12).
This is ultimately based on what is the center of Paul's theology—honoring the Lord. In describing the state of sinful humanity in chapter 1 he writes:
Romans 1:21–23 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Honoring and glorifying God then is at the heart of right relationship with him. Diverse practices then should be tolerated in the church as long as they honor God and do not violate the essential doctrines of the gospel and the clear ethical imperatives of Christ.
We should also note how Paul seems to interchange the words "Lord" referring to Jesus and God, referring to the Father in vv. 5-9. This further indicates that Paul thought of Jesus as God and the Father's representative here on earth. To interchange him with God the Father would be the utmost heresy if he weren't indeed God.
Additional Content
Reflection
Today reflect on your grasp of essential doctrines of the faith and the ethical imperatives found in Scripture. Do you know those in such a way that you are therefore able to discern what is a matter of opinion and falls within the realm of Christian freedom and what all Christians must agree on? These categories are super important for us to clarify so we know what's worth drawing lines on and what isn't. I always think of them as doctrinal essentials, non-essentials and opinions. Essentials includes things like salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus. Non-essentials includes things like Calvinism v. Arminianism or end times theology. Opinions includes things Bible translations and worship music styles. Think through some of your favorite doctrinal conversations. Which category do they fall in in that paradigm?
Audio
ff to 5:30 for additional content