The key to understanding the food issues in this chapter is to understand that in traditional Jewish thinking, in addition to the basic kosher laws of clean and unclean animals listed in Leviticus 11, there exists a second level of purity, that of sanctified and common. This is perhaps best exemplified in Acts 10 when God shows Peter a sheet of both clean and unclean animals and Peter responds by saying “by no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” (cf. Acts 10:9-16). In the Greek of Peter’s response, there are two separate, albeit related, words used: “koinos,” translated as “unholy” and “akathartos,” translated as “unclean.” The Greek word “koinos” is better translated as the word “common,” for the opposite of that which is set-apart (holy) is that which is normal (common). In other words, not only had Peter never eaten anything “unclean,” those animals which the Torah prohibits, he had also never eaten anything that wasn’t set-apart for consumption by the Jewish people. Specifically, Peter had never eaten any food prepared by Gentiles, since food prepared by Gentiles could no longer be considered "sanctified" by traditional Jewish law. Understanding the word "koinos" this way is substantiated by Peter’s own words later in the chapter, when he said: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean” (Acts 10:28). In what way, however would it have been unlawful for a Jewish person to visit a Gentile? Certainly Jewish people, especially in the Diaspora, interacted with Gentiles. It was specifically in the area of eating that Jewish law forbade Jewish people from visiting Gentile homes. This is evident in the response of Peter’s fellow Apostles in Acts 11:3 when they said: “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." To the Jewish mindset, the dinner table is like the altar of the Temple and the food served thereon is like the sacrifices offered to God. To eat at a Gentile's table is like eating the sacrifices offered to the false gods in the pagan temples. After hearing about Peter’s vision and the fact that the Spirit was poured out on the Gentiles, the other Apostles glorified God, saying, “well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (cf. Acts 11:4-18). Is it possible that from that moment on, there was to be a reformation within Jewish thinking in regards to Gentiles? Was it now incumbent upon Jewish people, especially Jewish believers, to understand that there were now two kinds of Gentiles: believing Gentiles and pagan Gentiles?

1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 

Though it is not possible to be dogmatic when interpreting this passage, if our presumptions are close to the issues behind this chapter, we can assume that those labelled "weak in faith" were those among the synagogue community who had not yet fully embraced that idea that Gentile believers were to be fully accepted. Paul's instruction here then were to the Jewish believers who had fully accepted Gentiles and, of course, the Gentile believers themselves to accept the Jewish person who had not yet come to accept that Gentile believers were fully a part of the people of Israel. Acceptance of those "weak in faith" was to be genuine and not to be done begrudgingly, passing judgment on their opinions. In other words, though they were "weak" in this area, their opinions regarding table-fellowship with Gentiles were to be respected. The key in determining the main principle Paul sought to convey here is found in the word "opinions." For matters in which the Scriptures do not plainly teach, there is to be grace and respect given to each person, specifically in the area of their own personal convictions. Surely there is to be discussion on these matters but there should also be the option to "agree to disagree." 

2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 

Paul further defined the "weak in faith" as those who ate vegetables only, in contrast to those within the community who felt at liberty to eat all things. We must remember that this situation was within the context of a synagogue community, so when Paul said "eat all things," we must understand that to refer to things that could be considered food according to Torah law. In other words, this was not a contrast between those who, for example, ate pork and those who didn't but those who ate kosher meat and those who abstained from meat altogether. If the meat was kosher, why then would there be some who abstained from eating it? Like Peter, some within the synagogue community considered food prepared by Gentiles to be "common" and not set-apart for consumption by the Jewish people. To this day, orthodox Jewish people do not consume meat, wine, bread, cheese and various other categories of food unless there is proper kosher certification. Regardless of whether the food itself is perhaps "clean" according to basic Biblical law, Jewish law forbids it to be consumed since it has not been sanctified by the certification process. (We should note that "sanctified" does not refer to anything moral, per se, but refers to the process of being set-apart by adherence to the traditional kosher laws.) In the Roman synagogue community, some came to understand that Gentile believers were not to be treated with the same suspicion as pagan Gentiles and could therefore enjoy full table fellowship. Others, however, though accepting of the Gentile believers on a general level, did not fully embrace them, and instead chose to abstain from the meat prepared by them. 

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

In his epistle to the Galatians, Paul recounted an incident in Antioch where Peter at first enjoyed table fellowship with Gentile believers but then withdrew from table fellowship once Jewish believers from Jerusalem arrived. In that situation, Paul sternly rebuked Peter to his face, accusing the Jewish believers who segregated themselves from the Gentile believers as not walking in-step with the truth of the Gospel (cf. Galatians 2:11-14). The phrase "in-step" could be understood that those particular Jewish believers were not upholding the halachah (which literally means "to walk") that the message of equality between Jews and Gentiles found in the Gospel would prescribe. Here, in his epistle to the Romans, Paul does not rebuke either side because neither side were to the point where they were actually segregating themselves. The side that did not fully embrace the Gentiles in table-fellowship still ate with them, albeit they refused to eat meat, and most likely, wine prepared by them. Nevertheless, Paul instructed that those who do eat food prepared by Gentile believers to not regard with contempt the one who chooses not to eat the food prepared by Gentile believers. To regard someone with contempt is to treat them as if they are deserving scorn. Rather than receiving them with genuine fellowship, the ones who felt free to eat Gentile-prepared food were treating those with the stricter practice as outsiders. Likewise, Paul instructed the ones who abstained from Gentile-prepared food to not judge the one who did eat food prepared by Gentiles. Though those who ate were transgressors of the stricter position, the abstainers should not treat them as if God had rejected them. Again, since these were matters of opinion, neither side could be certain of who was in the right and who was in the wrong. Neither group is to judge each other since all of us are servants of another, namely, God through the Messiah. If there is anyone that we will disappoint it will be God. If we do fail Him, it is He who will make us stand, because it is only by God's strength that believers persevere to the end.

5One person [esteems] one day above another, another [esteems] every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 

A second issue was raised by the Apostle, this time in reference to how some were regarding one day above another while others regarded every day alike. This verse has traditionally been used by the historic Christian church to demonstrate that Sabbath observance could no longer be considered to be an obligation for the people of God. Such an interpretation, however, places Paul's writings as over against the word of God Himself and the teachings of the Master Yeshua (cf. Exodus 31:16-17, Matthew 5:17-19). Firstly, the Sabbath is not mentioned in this passage at all and, secondly, the wording of these verses does not even allude to the Sabbath day. If the Sabbath were in question, Paul could have worded the verse this way: "one person keeps one day holy, while another keeps every day alike" but this is not what Paul said. Instead, Paul spoke of one person regarding one day above another. Actually, the word here translated as "regards" is the Greek word "krino," meaning "to approve, esteem, to prefer." So, this word could be better translated as "esteems." In the rabbinic literature, there is much discussion and legislation regarding how a Jewish person should act within the context of a pagan society, specifically on pagan holy days. We could question it this way, how should a Jewish person act within pagan culture, specifically on days where the culture is engaged in idolatrous celebrations? The strict position forbade the Jewish person any interaction or at least very limited interaction with the Gentile culture on pagan holidays. In contrast to this, some among the believers, knowing that they themselves were not engaging any idolatrous practice, felt free to go about their business on such holidays. One person esteemed one day above another because they could not act as they normally would due to how they could be perceived by others. Others were confident in their faith and knew that, despite what some could have perceived, they were not engaging in anything sinful. Regardless of which stance one took, Paul instructed each to be fully convinced in their own mind of their position. Being fully convinced of one's position is really the heart of the principle Paul employed here. For debatable matters, one must be completely sure that the position they have taken is truly what they believe to be right for them and not something that is simply a matter of convenience. 

6He who [regards] the day, [regards] it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 

Here were encounter another translation issue, with the NASB translating the word "phroneo" as "observe." This Greek word is never translated by the NASB as "observe" outside of the two times it's used in this verse. The word actually refers to "[directing] one's mind to a thing" and should be translated as "regards." In this way, like in verse 5, Paul spoke of those who were mindful of how they should act on certain days due to the fact that they were pagan holidays. Those who acted differently on these days did so for the Lord, for they did not even want to be perceived to be associated with that which the Scripture clearly forbids (idolatry). Paul then connected the previous issue of eating, and showed how the one who felt free to eat food prepared by Gentiles did so for HaShem and his meal was accompanied by the brachot that goes with meals. Similarly, however, the one who did not eat food prepared by Gentiles was also doing it for HaShem's sake and he too gave thanks for the meals he ate. Not only were these matters of opinion, each position was taken in worship of God. This context leaves no room for contempt or judgement, since how can one sit in judgement of someone when their motivations are noble and the position they've taken is debatable?

7For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 9For to this end Messiah died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 

The key to unity, especially when there are divergent opinions within a group, is to remember that focus of the believing life is God Himself. Here we find Paul clearly spelling out the role of God's sovereignty in our lives and even in our deaths. The reason why we're living the believing life in the first place is because of God, for not one of us lives for himself. Similarly, our deaths are according to God's sovereign will, for not one dies for himself. If we can simply remember who's in charge, many of the issues that arise in community life could be resolved. Instead of focusing on proving that one position is right and the other is wrong, we should focus on the one who died and lived again. Messiah accomplished salvation for His people and took His rightful position as Lord. Our lives are not our own, we live and die to serve our Master. These verses also give us an insight into Paul's understanding of the deity of the Master Yeshua. The Greek word "kurios," usually translated as "Lord," is here used interchangeably as a circumlocution for the name of God and as a title for Yeshua. To Paul, there is one God, just as the Shema declares and yet somehow the Messiah exists as an entity that can die and live again. As Paul says elsewhere, "great is the mystery of godliness..." (cf. 1 Timothy 3:16).