Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 14:2
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
2. This difference may be explained by the different quality and aspect of the controversies. In Galatia the question was of primary principle; at Rome and Corinth it was, on the whole, of secondary practice. How to be justified before God was the Galatian problem. How the justified should live was, at least in the main, the problem at Rome and Corinth. For there is no proof that the “weak brethren” differed from the “strong” on the great principle of Justification by Faith. Their error was that the path of duty, laid before the justified, included a moral obligation on the obedient children of God to abstain from certain sorts of food and to keep the Mosaic feasts. All the Roman Christians agreed that the justified must not lie nor steal; but the “weak brethren” held that, in the same way, they must not taste “unclean” food, nor neglect the festivals. The error in Galatia affected the very principle of the work and grace of Christ; the error at Rome did not, at all necessarily, do so. St Paul was thus perfectly consistent in writing Gal 1:6-9, and Rom 14:1-10.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2. believeth that he may eat ] Lit. believeth to eat; i.e. has faith which leads him to see that sorts of food are no longer a matter of religious scruple.
who is weak ] i.e. in his faith. See on Rom 14:1.
eateth herbs ] This is given as an extreme case. Anxious scrupulosity would adopt vegetarianism as the simplest solution of the questions raised by the Mosaic precepts, complicated by the possible “defilement” of animal-food by idol-sacrifices.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For one believeth – This was the case with the Gentiles in general, who had none of the scruples of the Jew about the propriety of eating certain kinds of meat. Many of the converts who had been Jews might also have had the same view as the apostle Paul evidently had while the great mass of Jewish converts might have cherished these scruples.
May eat all things – That is, he will not be restrained by any scruples about the lawfulness of certain meats, etc.
Another who is weak – There is reference here, doubt less, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was weak, that is, not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question with the Jew doubtless was, whether it was lawful to eat the meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices a part only of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshippers, or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his Law; Exo 34:15. This question the apostle discussed and settled in 1Co 10:20-32, which see. In that place the general principle is laid down, that it was lawful to partake of that meat as a man would of any other, unless it was expressly pointed out to him as having been sacrificed to idols, and unless his partaking of it would be considered as countenancing the idolators in their worship; Rom 14:28. But with this principle many Jewish converts might not have been acquainted; or what is quite as probable, they might not have been disposed to admit its propriety.
Eateth herbs – Herbs or vegetables only; does not partake of meat at all, for fear of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even ignorantly, they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on the subject might have arisen in part from the fact that sins of ignorance among them subjected them to certain penalties; Lev 4:2-3, etc.; Lev 5:15; Num 15:24, Num 15:27-29. Josephus says (Life, Section 3) that in his time there were certain priests of his acquaintance who supported themselves with figs and nuts. These priests had been sent to Rome to be tried on some charge before Caesar: and it is probable that they abstained from meat because it might have been offered to idols. It is expressly declared of Daniel when in Babylon, that he lived on pulse and water, that he might not defile himself with the portion of the kings meat, nor with the wine which he drank; Dan 1:8-16.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 2. One believeth that he may eat all things] He believes that whatsoever is wholesome and nourishing, whether herbs or flesh-whether enjoined or forbidden by the Mosaic law – may be safely and conscientiously used by every Christian.
Another, who is weak, eateth herbs.] Certain Jews, lately converted to the Christian faith, and having as yet little knowledge of its doctrines, believe the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats to be still in force; and therefore, when they are in a Gentile country, for fear of being defiled, avoid flesh entirely and live on vegetables. And a Jew when in a heathen country acts thus, because he cannot tell whether the flesh which is sold in the market may be of a clean or unclean beast; whether it may not have been offered to an idol; or whether the blood may have been taken properly from it.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
One believeth that he may eat all things; i.e. one that is informed aright of his Christian liberty, is fully persuaded, and that upon good grounds, that he may eat any thing that is wholesome, though forbidden by the ceremonial law; that there is now no difference of clean and unclean meats: see Mat 15:11; Act 10:12-15.
Another, who is weak, eateth herbs; i.e. he that (as before) is weak in faith, and not so well informed, such a one, for fear of offending God by eating any thing that is forbidden, will rather content himself with the meanest diet. The meaning is not, as if any, in those times, thought it lawful only to eat herbs, and so abstained altogether from other meats; but they would rather satisfy themselves with herbs, and other fruits of the earth, in which the law of Moses made no difference, than eat meats that were forbidden, or not cleansed from blood, or offered to idols, &c.: see Dan 1:8.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. one believeth that he may eat allthingsSee Ac 10:16.
another, who is weak, eatethherbsrestricting himself probably to a vegetable diet, forfear of eating what might have been offered to idols, and so would beunclean. (See 1Co 8:1-13).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For one believeth that he may eat all things,…. He is fully persuaded in his mind, that there is nothing in itself common, or unclean; that the difference between clean and unclean meats, commanded to be observed by the law of Moses, is taken away; and that he may now lawfully eat any sort of food; every creature of God being good, and none to be refused, because of the ceremonial law which is abrogated, provided it, be received with thanksgiving, and used to the glory of God:
another who is weak eateth herbs; meaning not one that is sickly and unhealthful, and of a weak constitution, and therefore eats herbs for health’s sake; but one that is weak in the faith, and who thinks that the laws concerning the observance of meats and drinks are still in force; and therefore, rather than break any of them, and that he may be sure he does not, will eat nothing but herbs, which are not any of them forbidden by the law: and this he did, either as choosing rather to live altogether on herbs, than to eat anything which the law forbids; or being of opinion with the Essenes among the Jews, and the Pythagoreans among the Gentiles, who thought they were to abstain from eating of all sorts of animals.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
One man ( ). “This one,” demonstrative pronoun with .
Hath faith (). Like (Ac 14:9).
But he that is weak ( ). One would expect (but that one) in contrast with . H is demonstrative with sometimes, but here is probably just the article with .
Herbs (). From , to dig. Hence garden herbs or vegetables. Denney feels certain that Paul has in mind a party of vegetarians in Rome.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Believeth that he may eat [ ] . The A. V. conveys the sense of having an opinion, thinking. But the point is the strength or weakness of the man’s faith (see ver. 1) as it affects his eating. Hence Rev., correctly, hath faith to eat.
Herbs (lacana). From lacainw to dig. Herbs grown on land cultivated by digging : garden – herbs, vegetables. See on Mr 4:32; Luk 12:42.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For one believeth that he may eat all things,” (hos men pisteuei phagein panta) “One person believes it proper to eat all kinds (of) things”; he has confidence that he is not under the law and it is proper to eat all kinds of food, or ethical to eat all kinds of things. He has no scruples about eating whatever is set before him, Gen 9:3-4; 1Co 10:27.
2) “Another, who is weak, eateth herbs,” (ho de asthenon lochara esthiei) “But the one who is weak or sickly eats herbs”; herbs to the exclusion of all meats, not merely the unclean meats as forbidden under the law. This appears to describe those especially who had been brought up under the regulations and ceremonies of the mosaic law. It appears that some were so fearful of moral pollution, of eating meat offered to idols that they became solely herbivorous, a thing not sanctioned or advocated by Paul, 1Co 8:1-13.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
2. Let him who believes, etc. What [ Erasmus ] has followed among the various readings I know not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’s words, is complete; and instead of the relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “One indeed believes,” etc. That I take the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a mode of speaking very usual with Paul. (416) He then calls those believers who were endued with a conscience fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the mean time the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought was not lawful. If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not right that he who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who are yet tender and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick, as some have done, is absurd.
(416) This is true, but the passage here seems not to require such a construction. Both sentences are declarative, announcing a fact respecting two parties: the one believed he might eat everything; the other did eat only herbs. The relative ὃς, when repeated, often means “one,” as in Rom 13:5, and in 1Co 11:21 : and the article ὁ stands here for that repetition; an example of which Raphelius adduces from the Greek classics.
Some think that this abstinence from meat was not peculiar to the Jews; but that some Gentiles also had scruples on the subject. It is true that heathens, who held the transmigration of souls, did not eat flesh: but it is not likely that abstinence, arising from such an absurd notion, would have been thus treated by the Apostle. It indeed appears evident, that the abstinence here referred to did arise from what was regarded to be the will of God: and though abstinence from all animal food was not enjoined on the Jews, yet it appears from history that Jews, living among heathens, wholly abstained, owing to the fear they had of being in any way contaminated. This was the case with Daniel and his companions, Dan 1:8. Professor [ Hodge ] says, in a note on this passage, “Josephus states in his life (chapter 23) that certain Jewish priests, while at Rome, lived entirely upon fruit, from the dread of eating anything unclean.” We may also suppose that some of the Essenes, who abstained from meat and from wine, were among the early converts. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Believeth that he may . . .Rather, perhaps, hath confidence to eat all things. His faith is strong enough to prevent his conscience from becoming uneasy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. He may eat all things That is, according with the apostle’s own opinion, that all eatables were equally innocent.
Eateth herbs Plainly under the supposition that herbs alone are morally innocent. This is a different case from those who abstain from meats offered to idols only, or from those who abstain from meats that may have been touched by Gentile hands.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats herbs.’
He posits the case of two men, one of whom ‘has the faith to eat all things’, and the other who eats only vegetables and herbs. The latter case might especially be true for those who wanted to ensure that they did not eat meat sacrificed to idols, or, in the case of those influenced by Judaism, meat from animals that had not been slaughtered in the right manner, and was therefore not ‘kosher’. We can compare the position of Daniel and his friends in Dan 1:8 ff. Paul has nothing against those who hold such positions, indeed he respects their viewpoint, even though he does not hold it himself. And elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 8 he gives detailed instructions about when meat sacrificed to idols should not be eaten simply in the light of how others might take it.
That the Jewish regulations as to cleanness and uncleanness of foods were certainly affecting the early church is brought out by Mark’s comment in Rom 7:19 b (‘and this He said making all foods clean’); by Act 11:3; and by the coming among the Galatians of Judaising Christians who sought to enforce food laws on Jewish Christians (Gal 2:11-15). Jewish Christians living in established Jewish communities (and especially those living in Jerusalem and Judaea) would unquestionably observe both food laws and Sabbath, and Paul had no problems with that. He himself could say, ‘to the Jews I became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews’ (1Co 9:20). There were probably such communities in Rome. What he had problems with was those who sought to enforce their views on the wider Christian church on the grounds that the latter were now part of Israel (Rom 11:16-24), (something with which he agreed without accepting that it had the consequences that they suggested). His stance was that, as with circumcision, Christ’s life and death had rendered such ordinances unnecessary for all, both Jew and Gentile.
The fact that all through Romans we have the contrast between Jew and Gentile drawn out, further serves to confirm that this is mainly a Christian Jew/Christian Gentile controversy, something which is confirmed by Rom 15:8-9, where it is the uniting of Jews and Gentiles as a consequence of the correct approach to the situation that is stressed. It is true that there were Gentile sects which advocated vegetarianism on the grounds, for example, of animals possessing living souls, but there are no grounds for considering that these were affecting the church in any deep way. The enforcing of Judaistic ideas on Christians, however, certainly were. And with regard to abstaining from all meats Josephus specifically informs us that certain Jews in Rome abstained from all meats, fearful lest they be unclean. Among many people Christians were simply seen as a Jewish sect (compare Act 18:12-16). After all they both looked to the same holy book. And as we have seen the early church saw itself as the continuation of the true Israel.
The only thing in question, therefore, was as to what difference had been made by the coming of the Messiah. And the answer was basically that in Him the Sabbath rest, to which the Sabbath had pointed, had now come (Mat 11:28-30; Heb 4:9). The Sabbath had fulfilled its purpose of pointing to the coming rest. That is why as the Messiah Jesus was now able to do His Messianic work on the Sabbath along with His Father (Joh 5:16-18). It was why strict observance of the Sabbath was no longer necessary, because He was the Lord of the Sabbath (Mar 2:27-28). Furthermore, in Him the new higher life to which the laws of clean and unclean had pointed (see our commentary on Leviticus), had arrived The pointers were thus no longer required.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 14:2. Eateth herbs Some of the Jews used to eat no flesh at all, and others looked upon it as a very high pitch of virtue to abstain from it in Gentile countries, and to subsist entirely on vegetables, from an apprehension, that the flesh sold in the shambles might have been offered to idols, or at least have contracted some ceremonial pollution. Possibly some of these Jewish converts might have been of the sect of the Essenes, who were peculiarly strict on this head, insomuch that they abstained not only from flesh, but from fruit. See Whitby and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 14:2 . More particular discussion of the subject, and in the first place, exhibition of the first point of difference between the two parties .
] without a corresponding , instead of which there is at once put the definite .: the one ( i.e. the strong) believes , etc.; but the weak , etc. Comp. Khner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 15; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 507.
may mean: he is convinced that he may eat all things , so that the notion is implied in the relation of the verbal notion to the infinitive (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 753 f.; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 235); so Tholuck, Borger, and older interpreters. But more agreeable to the , Rom 14:1 , and to the contrast ., is the rendering: he has the confidence, the assurance of faith, to eat all things ; Winer, p. 302 [E. T. 405]. Comp. Dem. 866. 1, and generally Krger, 61. 6. 8. To supply (van Hengel) is in accordance with the sense, but unnecessary.
] excludes, according to the connection, all use of flesh, not merely that of Levitically unclean animals, or of flesh sacrificed to idols, or on feast and fast days, limitations of which nature are introduced by most interpreters (including Reiche, Kllner, Neander, Tholuck, Philippi). The weak in faith eats no flesh, but vegetables are his food. Comp. Wieseler in Herzog’s Encyklop. XX. p. 595.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Ver. 2. Eateth herbs ] Rather than meats forbidden by the law, Dan 1:11 . The ancient Latins were as well paid of herbs to eat, as if they had had all manner of dainties. Green herbs were both food and medicine to them. Holus ab Vegetables from .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] The , the strong in faith, so indicated by what follows, is opposed to (not to be taken , , . . .), by which of Rom 14:1 is resumed.
, either believes that he may ( ) eat , or ventures to eat . The latter is favoured by ref. Acts, , ‘ we trust to be saved ;’ though that also may be expanded into ‘we believe that we shall be saved,’ as E. V.
. .] See remarks introductory to this chapter.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 14:2 . : cf. Rom 14:5 , Rom 9:21 . : has confidence to eat all things. See Winer, p. 405. Gifford quotes Demosthenes, p. 88: : “he had not confidence, i.e. , was too cautious, to give up the dowry”. This use of shows that to Paul was essentially an ethical principle; the man who was strong in it had moral independence, courage, and originality. : it is impossible to suppose that Paul here is “writing quite generally”; he must have had a motive for saying what he does, and it can only be found in the fact that he knew there were Christians in Rome who abstained from the use of flesh.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
For one = The one indeed.
believeth. App-150.
another = the (other).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] The , the strong in faith, so indicated by what follows, is opposed to (not to be taken , , …), by which of Rom 14:1 is resumed.
, either believes that he may () eat,-or ventures to eat. The latter is favoured by ref. Acts, , we trust to be saved; though that also may be expanded into we believe that we shall be saved, as E. V.
. .] See remarks introductory to this chapter.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 14:2. , believes) This word has a more direct sense in the predicate; the participle conceals, as it were, the weakness of him who eats herbs.-, herbs) vegetable food (in preference to meats, Rom 14:21), which we have the most undoubted liberty to eat, Gen 9:3.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 14:2
Rom 14:2
One man hath faith to eat all things:-His faith will let him eat flesh as well as vegetables. He has no scruples about either. [His grasp and hold of the teachings of Christ is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are.]
but he that is weak eateth herbs.-Another has doubts about eating flesh. It is a weak and morbid conscience, growing out of a weak faith, that troubles over this question. In all ages some persons have persuaded themselves from one cause or another that it is wrong to eat flesh. Their faith does not allow them to eat it, so is called a weak faith. But nothing is found in the Bible showing that God is displeased with his childrens eating flesh.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
that: Rom 14:14, 1Co 10:25, Gal 2:12, 1Ti 4:4, Tit 1:15, Heb 9:10, Heb 13:9
another: Rom 14:22, Rom 14:23
eateth: Gen 1:29, Gen 9:3, Pro 15:17, Dan 1:12, Dan 1:16
Reciprocal: Gen 3:18 – herb Lev 11:2 – General Lev 11:47 – General 1Co 8:9 – weak Col 2:16 – in meat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4:2
Rom 14:2. Who is weak explains the weak person in verse 1. He is weak in that he thinks he should not eat any kind of food but herbs.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 14:2. One man; as in Rom 14:5. For is not found in the original
Hath faith to eat all things. Believeth is literal, but the reference to faith throughout makes this paraphrase necessary. One has a confidence resulting from faith which permits him to eat every kind of food. This is the first point of difference, and the position of the majority naturally comes first.
But he that is weak, eateth herbs. (See above.) This is best taken in its exact sense; the scruple was such that only vegetables were eaten. Even bread, prepared by others, may have been deemed unclean. But there may have been a variety of usage among the weak brethren. Such believers are apt to differ among themselves, as well as with their stronger brethren.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle declares the ground of difference that was between them; namely, the difference of meats. One thought all meats to be lawful under the gospel; another, rather than eat any meats forbidden by the law, will eat only herbs.
Where observe, How the church of God, in all ages, has been strangely divided about little and indifferent things. What jars and stirs were there between the eastern and western churches about the observation of Easter; about celebrating the Lord’s supper with leavened or unleavened bread! And, verily, the fatal evils which our hot contentions have occasioned amongst ourselves, only about indifferent rites and ceremonies, tears of blood are not sufficient to bewail.
Observe next, The apostle’s exhortation to the two contending parties, not to vilify or set at nought one another, condemning each other as humorous and scrupulous, much less as obstinate and wilful; but especially, not upon this occasion to separate from, or break communion with, each other. Let not him that eateth all kinds of meats despise him that through weakness durst not eat of any.
As if the apostle had said, “Whilst there is error in our understandings, weakness in our judgments, narrowness in our faculties, differences will arise in the church of God: but take care that where there is not compliance, that yet there may be peace. Despise not, judge not one another.”
Observe lastly, the reason offered by the apostle, why they should receive their weak brother; because God hath received him. God, that is most holy, and hateth sin, receiveth such; therefore so must you, if you please God. Why should you refuse to hold communion with such as hold communion with God?
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Rom 14:2-4. For one believeth that he may eat all things A converted Gentile, who rightly understands his Christian liberty, is firmly persuaded that he may eat any kind of food indifferently, though forbidden by the ceremonial law, (blood excepted, of which see on Act 15:20,) without sin. Another, who is weak A believing Jew, not thoroughly informed of his Christian liberty; eateth herbs Namely, for fear lest he should offend by eating any meat forbidden by the law, or which was not killed in a legal manner. See Lev 17:10-14; Dan 1:8. Let not him that eateth That makes use of his liberty to eat any thing that is wholesome indifferently; despise him As over-scrupulous or superstitious; that eateth not That forbears the use of such kind of food as is forbidden by the law. And let not him which eateth not Who, from a scrupulous conscience, abstains from many kinds of food; judge him that eateth Censure him as profane, or as taking undue liberties. For God hath received him Acknowledges both the one and the other for his servant, on account of their common faith in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel. This is a powerful argument for our conversing in a friendly manner, and holding communion with those who differ from us in opinion, on some points of lesser importance in religion. Who art thou Whether weaker or stronger; that judgest another mans servant One over whom thou hast no power. To his own master he standeth or falleth He must abide by Christs judgment only, to whom it belongs either to acquit or condemn him. Yea, he shall be holden up If he offends in no greater points than these in debate among you, he shall be upheld in his Christian profession, and established to eternal salvation. For God is able to make him stand And certainly will do it, if he continue to act conscientiously and uprightly.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 2. The meaning of , to believe, is determined by its opposition to , being weak: who has a faith firm enough to be able to eat anything without scruple.
Eateth herbs, that is to say, nothing else.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
One man hath faith [believes he has the liberty or right] to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. [We are familiar with the universal Jewish scruples with regard to swine’s flesh and meat offered to idols; but there were some who refined their diet to far greater extremes–to the “mint, anise and cummin” standard. A sect called Therapeut had a regimen thus described by Philo: “Wine is not introduced. . . and the table bears nothing which has blood, but there is placed upon it bread food, and salt for seasoning, to which also hyssop is sometimes added as an extra sauce for those who are delicate in their eating.” However, the abstinence here mentioned was most widely practiced by all scattered Jews. Knowing that any meat bought in Gentile markets was open to question and liable to be unclean, they, being unable to purchase clean meat as prepared by Jewish butchers, abstained from all meat and ate only those things (classed as herbs by the apostle) which they could trace from natural growth to use on their tables. (See Dan 1; Tobit 1:10, 11.) Josephus’ “Life,” Sec. 3, mentions certain priests who fed solely on figs and dates.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 2
There was a difficulty in the minds of many Jews, in respect to eating animal food, lest they might sometimes eat the flesh of animals which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and thus, as they supposed, be sharers in the sin of idolatry, or in other respects violate the Mosaic requirements in regard to ceremonial uncleanness. (See Romans 14:14.) This subject is treated fully in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. There was also a disposition, manifested quite early in the history of the church, to imagine that voluntary penances and privations, and especially a rigid self-denial in the use of food, was either the mark that indicated, or the means to acquire, peculiar sanctity. Which of these two ideas is the one referred to by the apostle here has been considered uncertain. It would seem altogether probable that it was the former, for it is treated as the harmless prejudice of a weak-minded man, which the former was; while the latter is the seed and germ of the most dangerous fanaticism.–Herbs; vegetables.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:2 {2} For one {c} believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
(2) He propounds for an example the difference of meats, which some thought was necessarily to be observed as a thing prescribed by the law (not knowing that it was taken away) whereas on the other hand those who had profited in the knowledge of the gospel knew well that this position of the law as the schoolmaster was abolished.
(c) Knows by faith.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Here is a specific case of disagreement. Paul did not say why the weaker brother chose not to eat meat. This brother’s reasons were immaterial to Paul. The point is that for some reason this Christian believed that he would please God more by not eating meat than by eating it. He was wrong. God has not forbidden Christians from eating any food (1Ti 4:3-4). Eating food is an amoral matter. It is neither morally good nor morally bad; what we eat does not in itself affect our relationship with God. The contrast with life in Israel is again striking where, to please God, an Israelite had to abstain from certain foods. Under certain circumstances, eating certain food could become a moral issue (cf. Act 15:20; 1Co 11:20-21), but in itself food is non-moral.