Romans 14:21
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.
Original Language Analysis
Cross References
Historical Context
Wine was daily beverage in antiquity; abstaining would be notable. Yet Paul says it's 'good' to abstain if it causes stumbling. Early Christian communities varied: some abstained entirely (influenced by Nazirite vows or reaction to pagan drunkenness), others partook moderately. Paul allows both, provided they don't destroy others. This shaped Christian temperance movements: total abstinence isn't mandated biblically, but may be wise contextually (where alcoholism is rampant, weaker believers struggle). The principle applies broadly: limit freedom where it harms others' faith.
Questions for Reflection
- What liberties (food, drink, entertainment, speech) might be 'good' (<em>kalon</em>) for you to limit for weaker believers' sake?
- How do you distinguish between genuine conscience issues requiring sensitivity versus mere preferences demanding conformity?
- In what areas might you be prioritizing your 'rights' over love for those who might stumble (<em>proskoptei</em>) due to your freedom?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
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—Kalon to mē phagein krea mēde piein oinon mēde en hō ho adelphos sou proskoptei (καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει). Kalon (καλός, good/noble) elevates voluntary abstinence to virtue—not legalistic requirement but loving self-limitation. Krea (meat), oinon (wine), and en hō proskoptei (anything in which he stumbles) cover all disputable matters.
Proskoptō (προσκόπτω, stumble/take offense) indicates causing spiritual harm. Paul's principle: if your freedom wounds a brother, abstain—even from objectively permissible things. This is radical: limit liberty not merely when sinful but when potentially harmful to others. Love outweighs rights. This isn't capitulation to hypersensitivity but pastoral wisdom: where genuine conscience is at stake (not mere preference), strong believers bear responsibility to limit freedom for weak believers' spiritual welfare (15:1, 'we...strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak').