Did Paul Declare All Animals Clean?
Understanding Romans 14:14-21
by Kelly McDonald, Jr.
“14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean [koinon] of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean [koinon], to him it is unclean [koinon]. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat [broma], now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat [brōmati], for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat [brōsis] and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat [brōmatos] destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure [kathara]; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Romans 14:14-23, KJV).
Common Argument: These verses have been used to say that Paul declared all things as clean and no animals are unclean anymore.
Think it Through: In a few sentences, did Paul intend to change the biology of all unclean animals on earth? Did Paul have the ability or authority to make that happen? Clearly not. We have to consider the issue he was addressing and the language involved. Paul still refers to unclean animals in Romans 6:19, 2 Cor. 6:17, and other places; Rev. 18:2 also referenced them. This means Paul discussed another subject.
Short Answer: Some believers in the Roman Church viewed clean animal meat as physically dirty and thus were vegetarian. The belief was common in the ancient world. Paul referred to how people viewed meat, not how God defines meat. God already settled this subject at creation; Paul is not greater than God (see article “How Does God Define Food?” – click here).
Longer Answer: To grasp the meaning of this excerpt from Romans 14, we need to look at the broader context of the chapter, some language, and history.
Romans 14:1-4
“1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand” (KJV).
The first thing we need to understand about this passage is that Paul is addressing a disputable situation or matter (verse 1). Nothing God has established is in question. Whether some animals are clean or unclean is clearly explained several times in the Scriptures (see article “How Does God Define Food?” – click here). It is not doubtful as Paul refers to it in Romans 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:17, and other places. This means the situation at hand is not clearly addressed by the Old Testament.
The first four verses inform us that the issue involves one group who only wants to eat vegetables and another group that eats animal meat. Thus, the issue involves vegetarianism versus eating meat in general. The chapter is not about what kind of meat one should eat. Over the next few verses, Paul adds additional details to clarify the situation.
Romans 14:5-8
“5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.”
In verses 5-6, Paul mentioned another disputable matter among the believers in Rome: whether one day is esteemed more than another. Some have said that he negated the Sabbath or Feast Days with these verses. He addressed days that man considers important, not days that God considers important. God repeatedly that the Sabbath is holy and that it is HIS feast (Ex. 16:23, 29; 20:8-11; Lev. 19:3, 23:2-3, Isaiah 56:4).
If a person considers one day a good day to till the soil or perform another common activity, then honor the Lord with those activities. Do not honor some pagan deity or superstition. To learn more about the meaning of this subject, read our free article “What is the Meaning of Romans 14:5-6” (Click HERE to read).
Towards the end of verse 6, Paul transitioned back to the issue of eating. He emphasized that we should eat for the Lord and for no other purpose. Remember that this letter was written to the Romans. They were very superstitious.
There was a strain of thought in the Greco-Roman world which believed very strongly in vegetarianism (see Ovid, Metamorphosis, 15.76-112, 140-142, 458-462; Seneca, Epistulae, 108.17-22; Plutarch: On the Eating of Flesh, 1.41 and On Isis and Osiris, sections 2,4,7; Lucius Apuleis, Metamorphosis, 11.26-29).
From these sources we can understand that their opposition to eating meat was connected to one or more beliefs. Some believed that the soul of other people dwelt in those animals and that eating animal meat would hurt other human souls. Others believed that it mimicked carnivorous animals to eat the meat of other animals. Another group abstained from animal meat for other gods or other superstitions.
In verse two, Paul called the group who ate only vegetables as ‘weak’ in the faith. Why did he make this statement? Because their faith was still in some other god or belief system. This explains why Paul stated that those who abstain from meat should do so for the Lord in verse 6.
Those who eat meat should do so because they believe it is acceptable in God’s eyes and not to spite believers with a weak mindset. In other words, Christians in Rome should honor the Lord and not honor themselves or other non-Biblical beliefs. Paul addressed how the Roman believers should resolve this problem in verses 14-23.
Romans 14:14-16
“14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean [koinon] of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean [koinon], to him it is unclean [koinon]. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat [broma], now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat [brōmati], for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of” (KJV).
The Greek word Paul used for unclean in verse 14 is koinon, which refers to physical dirtiness or something common. The main Greek word used in the New Testament to refer to unclean animals is the word akathartos. It is not used in this passage (see 2 Cor. 6:17 for a verse where akathartos is used).
In verse 15, Paul uses the word broma for food, which refers to clean animal meat. Therefore, Paul defines meat in the passage. In both the New Testament and Old Testaments, food is that which God made ‘to eat.’ To learn more about this subject, read the article “How Does God Define Food?” (click here).
In verses 14-15, Paul wrote that no broma is physically unclean (koinon) of itself. Some of the believers in Rome that were once influenced by vegetarian-based philosophies and/or religions still believed that broma, or animal meat that God made to eat, was physically impure. This is why Paul called them weak or immature in their faith.
Paul said that broma was only physically defiled to someone who thinks that it is physically defiled. It is not physically defiled in God’s eyes because it is permissible to eat. At the same time, mature believers should not hinder the faith of these less mature believers by eating clean meat in front of them. He then explained to the Romans why believers should not use food as a stumbling block to each other.
Romans 14:17-18
“17 For the kingdom of God is not meat [brōsis] and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”
The Greek word Paul used for eating in verse 17 is brosis, which also refers to clean animal meat. Romans 14:17-18 does not apply to the positive action of eating an unclean animal, but the negative action of not eating clean animals. Those who abstain are simply weak in faith. Paul concludes this chapter in verses 19-23.
Romans 14:19-23
“19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat [brōmatos] destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure [kathara]; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
Paul used the word bromatos (a form of broma) in verse 20. All broma is clean. He is affirming that clean animals are permissible to eat. There’s nothing new here – only what is already true.
At the same time, Paul cautioned the mature believers in Rome not to eat clean animal meat in front of other brothers who think that such meat is physically defiled. He is not willing to let a matter such as eating broma, which God has clearly defined, to come between the brethren or cause someone’s downfall.
If a person believes it is acceptable to eat clean animal meat, let them do it in faith with that belief. If a person does not have the faith to believe that God approves of them eating clean animal meat, then they should not eat it in faith. Whatever a person’s viewpoint, we must consider the faith of others in respect of their Lord and Savior.
In the very next chapter, Paul wrote: “…For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope…” (Romans 15:4). In this verse, the Scriptures refer to the Old Testament. No New Testament existed at that time. In his conclusion about this subject, Paul affirmed that everything was written in the Old Testament to teach us.
This means that the dietary commandments, His seventh-day Sabbath, His Feast Days, and other commandments are all to teach us and give us hope. This means they are always relevant and cannot be done away with or changed.
A closer look at Romans 14 reveals that the chapter has nothing to do with clean and unclean. Through the use of the words broma and brosis, Paul continued to convey God’s previously established definition of food. Instead, these verses address how to deal with differences among believers in the body of Christ. Paul mentions the word Gentile about 19 times in the letter and directly addresses them (see Rom. 11:13). When they received the message of Jesus as the Messiah, they still had beliefs from their past to overcome.
The main concern in the chapter is that mature believers do not use their faith in a way that damages the faith of less mature believers. Additionally, he does not want us to cling to superstitions that prevent what God permits. The meaning is made clear through context, language, and history.
Kelly McDonald, Jr.
Pastor, David’s Tent Christian Fellowship
Bibliography
Holy Bible. King James Version.
Lucius Apuleius. Metamorphosis, 11.26-29. Apuleius the Golden Ass. Being the Metamorphoses of Lucius Apuleius. Translated by W. Adlington. Revised by S. Gasellee. Harvard University Press, 1915. pp 585-593.
Marcus Varro. On the Latin Language, 6.29-31. Translated by Roland G. Kent. Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, 1938. pp 200-203.
Ovid. Fasti, 5.470-492; ibid, 6.169, Translated by Sir James George Frazer. Ovid’s Fasti. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1931. pp 295-297 331.
Ovid. Metamorphoses, 15.76-112, 140-142, 458-462. Translated by Frank Justus Miller. Vol. 2. Harvard University Press, 1916. pp 371-373, 375, 397.
Plutarch. On the Eating of Flesh, 1.41. Plutarch’s Moralia. Translated by Harold Cherniss. Volume 12. Harvard University Press, 1957. pp 541-561.
Plutarch. On Isis and Osiris, sec. 2,4,7. Plutarch’s Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Vol. 5. Harvard University Press, 1936. pp 6-21.
Plutarch. Roman Questions, section 25. Plutarch’s Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. vol. 4. Harvard University Press, 1936. pp 41-47.
Propertius. Elegies, 4.1.81-86. The Elegies of Propertius. Translated by H.E. Butler, H. E. Cambridge, 1912. pp 269-271.
Seneca. Epistulae, 108.17-22. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. Vol 3. William Heinemann, London, 1925. pp 241-243.
Suetonius. Life of Augustus, XCII. Translated by J.C. Rolfe. Vol. 1. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1951. pp 261-263.
Tibullus. Poems 1.3,17-18. Catullus, Tibullus, and Pervigilium Veneris. Translated by F.W. Cornish. New York, 1921. pp 206- 207.