Nothing is unclean of itself (b): Should Christians Follow the Dietary Laws [Part 5b]

Romans 14v14 (part 5b)

 Paul is addressing three issues, all relating to food and holy days:

·        Those who eat anything vs those who eat only vegetables (see v 2-3)

·         Those who consider a day holy vs those who think all days are alike (see v 5-6)

·        Those who eat anything vs those who abstain (see v 6)

Then he adds a comment that most people believe is a summary of the whole passage:

“I know – that is, I have been persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ – that nothing is unclean of itself. But if a person considers something unclean, then for him it is unclean” (v 14)

We have already addressed v2 in association with 1 Corinthians 8-10, here [https://christiansandtorah.blogspot.com/2025/11/should-christians-follow-dietary-laws.html]. In this post I hope to cover the remaining issues and also look at the matter of ‘personal opinions’.

Most people separate the two subjects in Romans 14v5-6: holy days and again, eating food. However, the whole passage is about eating food, so it begs the question, ‘Why does Paul suddenly throw in something about holy days in the middle of two sections about food?’ Paul’s arguments are not usually disjointed, so why change the subject in the middle? The answer is, he doesn’t. The whole chapter is about eating food and the two issues here are connected. Let’s see if we can unpick that a little.

Special Days

Let’s begin by looking at the issue of ‘special days’. As I have already said, why would Paul, in the middle of a passage about food, drop in something about the Sabbath and other holy days? The passage never even once mentions those holy days. The focus is on food/eating. How does the mention of holy days fit in with the subject at hand – what we eat?

The modern interpretation of verse 5 is fourfold:

·        It doesn’t matter what day we keep Sabbath

·        Sabbath is no more sacred than any other day of the week

·        Biblical holidays are of no consequence because all days are the same

·        It’s up to us to decide if these holy days matter

Again, in context, Paul is saying ‘don’t let arguments about ‘these things’ offend one another. Does that mean we should agree that we can keep the Sabbath on any day we like? What does God say about the Sabbath?

·        Genesis 2:2-3: "And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation."

·        Exodus 20:8-11: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labour, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work... {The Lord} blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

·        Exodus 31:14 “You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you.”

·        Isaiah 58:13: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honourable...

So God says the Sabbath day is holy. He sanctified it and made it holy. But those are obviously Old Testament verses. Is there anything to say we need to keep the Sabbath holy in the New Testament?

Indirectly, yes. The New Testament believers kept the Sabbath, including Jesus. It was their custom to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath and they obeyed the commandment. Jesus claimed to be ‘Lord of the Sabbath’ and said that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. God gave us the Sabbath as a day of rest, when we are to gather together for a ‘holy convocation’ (a meeting together to worship God).

Many Christians believe that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, a ‘Christian Sabbath’ if you will; others recognise that the Sabbath is Saturday but say it no longer applies and we are free to keep it or not as we choose and on whatever day we choose, whether Saturday, Sunday or any other day of the week. As it is a day of rest, then those who work on Sundays (eg nurses or Pastors) have a day of rest on Monday, or Thursday or whatever day they are free. But does the Scripture uphold that idea? Has the Sabbath been changed or done away with? [This is a whole subject in itself and will be addressed in another post at a later date]. To answer this briefly, there are two passages of Scripture I want to quote:

·        Matthew 5v17-19: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

·        Hebrews 4:9-10: "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for anyone who enters God’s rest has also rested from his works, as God did from his." 

This by no means addresses the matter of whether the Sabbath has been changed, but it does go to show that we are still meant to keep a Sabbath of some kind, whether Saturday or Sunday and that God’s law has not been abrogated.

So yes, one day is more holy than another, so what did Paul mean when he addressed the argument about one day being more holy than another, while others consider all days alike? Did he mean we could choose whether or not to keep a Sabbath or holy day?

Eating vs not eating/abstaining

Remember, the whole passage is about eating food and was addressed to believers in the first century. We need to look at the message Paul is giving us in light of that context.

The Jews had a custom (indeed many still do) of fasting on Mondays and Thursdays. These fasts are not commanded in the Torah, but in the days of the New Testament, Jews who fasted twice a week considered themselves more holy than those who did not. We can see an example of this in Jesus’ story of the Pharisee and the tax collector, where the Pharisee prays to God: “I am thankful that I am not like other men, such as this tax collector here; I fast twice a week and give a tenth of my income”  (Luke 18v9-14), or those who fasted to be seen by men to be fasting (Matthew 6v16-18). Were these days more holy than other days? No, and they were not made so by fasting on them. Paul says if you want to fast on Mondays and Thursdays, go ahead, but don’t make that a rule of practice for everyone else, because that is not in the Torah. The one who honours those days, does so to the Lord; the one who fasts on other days, or doesn’t fast, also does so to the Lord. It is not for the individual to judge another individual about this issue. By judging one another, they were causing offence to each other and thus not honouring the Lord.

[Incidentally, this says nothing about not judging against the standard of Scripture (judge with righteous judgment, John 7v24). And remember, Paul only had the Old Testament as his standard; the New Testament had not yet been written. So his standard of rule was the Torah].

So now we can see what the connection is between verse 5 and verse 6 – one who eats vs one who abstains (ie fasts) and whether or not to do so on particular days. Matters of God’s law are not open to debate; pork, shellfish and keeping the Sabbath are not matters that are of personal opinion; nor do we need to be ‘convinced in our own minds’ (v6) about whether or not we obey them. God’s rules are absolute. What was not absolute was the additional rules and regulations added by the Pharisees – also referred to as ‘customs’ in the Bible. It is these customs that were bring about dissention in the church in Rome, not God’s laws.

Verse 6 says that those who eat food do so ‘to honour the Lord’ and those who abstain from eating do so ‘to the Lord’. Can we eat things God has forbidden and still say we are doing so ‘to honour the Lord’? Does disobeying a direct command of God bring Him glory? Does it honour the Lord to eat those things He has forbidden? I think not! But to say that one day is more holy than another for fasting leads to arguments and those arguments do not bring glory to God. God can be glorified by fasting (not eating) or not fasting (eating) as long as it is done in gratitude to God and for His glory and falls within the permitted/prohibited rules of the Torah. Neither fasting nor not fasting on these days was wrong if done to God’s glory. Again, can we eat pork – meat God has declared to be ‘an abomination’ (see Isaiah 66v17) –  to the glory of God?

There is a story told of Smith Wigglesworth, one of the founding members of Pentecostalism:

Smith Wigglesworth and Pork

“Let’s look now at something a little more up to date. It is very likely that if you have been a Christian with a Pentecostal Theology for any amount of time you have heard the name Smith Wigglesworth. He was a pioneer of the early Pentecostal Movement and is considered by many to be one of if not the most important pioneers in the establishment of modern Pentecostal Theology. In an account recorded in Pioneers Of Faith (Harrison House, Inc. 1995) by Lester Sumrall, a unique event occurred at a banquet in the Southern United States where Wigglesworth was asked to bless the meal.
In the banquet there was a lot of good food, but in the middle of the table was a roasted pig. Sumrall records these as the words prayed over the meal by Wigglesworth, “Almighty God, if you can now bless that which you have cursed, bless this foul pig to their bodies.” After this Wigglesworth was asked if he would partake in eating a piece of the hog to which he replied, “I never touch the stinking stuff.” How is it that the greatest pioneer of faith in the establishment of the Pentecostal Church taught this and today Pentecostal Christians all over the world have abandoned this very thing?
I’m talking about a man who was documented by the secular press of his day as raising the dead through the prayer of faith on multiple occasions. Perhaps it is best said that the reason why we don’t do what Wigglesworth did is because we don’t do what he did (if you don’t get that, the reason we don’t see the power of God in manifestation the way it was in Wigglesworth’s ministry is because we don’t obey the Word of God the way Wigglesworth did).”
[quoted from: https://truthignitedministry.wordpress.com/the-key-to-divine-health/]

 ‘Nothing is unclean of itself’ (v14)

There is a second verse in this chapter that speaks of ‘all things are clean’ (v20). As we have seen, Scripture does not contradict Scripture and Paul is not doing away with the food laws, so what does he mean here? I covered this in the previous post (https://christiansandtorah.blogspot.com/2025/11/should-christians-follow-dietary-laws.html ) but it is worth repeating here.

The word translated ‘unclean’ in this verse is the Greek word ‘koinos’. This is the only place in the NT where that word is translated ‘unclean’. Everywhere else it is translated ‘common, or defiled’ and referred to a manmade rule that food that was otherwise permitted by Leviticus 11, could become unfit to eat by association with something that was ‘unclean’. When God calls something unclean, the word is ‘akathartos’; when man declares something clean to be ‘unclean-by-association’ the word is ‘koinos’ which means ‘common. The difference between these two words is most clearly seen in Acts 10, where both words are used. Peter says ‘I have never eaten anything that is common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)’ and God replies, ‘do not call common (koinos), that which I have cleansed’. You will notice that nowhere in Acts 10 does God say anything about not calling unlean things unclean (akathartos). I dealt with this at length here: https://christiansandtorah.blogspot.com/2025/09/should-christians-follow-dietary-laws_16.html

When Paul says ‘nothing is unclean of itself’ he uses the word ‘koinos’. He is not saying that things God had declared unclean were now clean; he was saying that clean food items were not ‘common’ of themselves. Clean meat is clean and fit for eating; clean food is not defiled of itself – something has to happen to it to make it unfit to eat. The Jews believed that eating with ritually unwashed hands rendered clean food ‘common’ and therefore not fit to eat.

So what does Paul mean by saying “nothing is unclean (or common) of itself”? simply this – food that God has declared clean cannot be made unclean by manmade laws or traditions. If that were the case, then the disciples in Mark 7, who ate with unwashed hands, were eating something ‘unclean’, when clearly they were not. Nothing God has said is clean is therefore unclean naturally.

Paul also mentions that he was ‘persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ’ that nothing is unclean of itself. He was aware of Jesus’ teaching on this subject. In fact, both Jesus and Peter (and now Paul in Romans 14) were saying that all  food  is clean. And also remember that the word for food is ‘broma’ and refers in the Bible only to those things that God has said are food – namely meats he has declared clean. So what God has declared to be food and therefore fit to eat is clean. Paul’s message then in Romans 14 is that food as defined by ‘broma’ is clean. And we know from v20 that Paul is speaking of ‘food’ because he says so:

“don’t tear down God’s work for the sake of food. True enough, all things are clean, but it is wrong for anybody by his eating to cause someone to fall away.”

He is not saying we can now eat anything we like, whether God has forbidden it or not. If ‘food’ (broma) by definition is only that which God says we can eat, Paul cannot be speaking of pork being clean in this verse.

Fully convinced in his own mind? (v5)

The important thing is for each one to be ‘fully convinced in his own mind’. The modern interpretation of this passage leads us to understand here that whatever rules, regulations and commandments are in the Scripture (and remember, Paul only had what we call the Old Testament) are subject to whether or not we are convinced we should do them. Thus there are no absolutes, God’s laws are subject to man’s whims, and everyone can do that which he ‘feels convicted’ about. This attitude has led to all manner of evils, even within the church!

Today’s interpretation of Romans 14 then is that one person might be convinced they no longer need to follow the dietary laws; others might believe they should. One might believe that all days are alike, while another thinks some days are more special than others. And this is applied to the dietary laws and Sabbaths. However, in the context of what we have been showing in this article and the previous one, the Romans were not being encouraged to decide whether or not to keep God’s laws; they were being encouraged to think hard about whether they needed to fast on certain days, or whether they should eat meat that might have been offered to idols. Remember too, that the dispute in the Roman congregation was about ‘matters of opinion’. God’s laws are not subject to man’s opinion. If they were, then we are setting ourselves up as gods and judging God’s laws by our own beliefs and consciences.

When it comes to fasting or not fasting, doing so on certain days or not, Paul wants his readers to be ‘fully convinced in their own minds’ as a matter of faith. And they are not to be judgmental of their fellow believers if others have a different opinion.

So if we have a different opinion about God’s laws – eg eating only clean meats – does that come under this banner too? Of course not! The standard of our faith is the Scripture. If we can decide for ourselves which bits to obey, then we might as well not have a standard. Where do we go to check what God wants of us if not to the Scriptures? Is it enough to say ‘the Holy Spirit told me’? Or do we check that the Holy Spirit was indeed the One who told us something against the Scripture? The Bereans were commended for checking everything Paul said against the Scripture (Old Testament only). Yet today, we follow what Paul said – or rather what we have interpreted Paul to have said – without checking it against the whole of the Bible. If our interpretation makes Paul (or any of the writers of the Bible) say something that contradicts another part, then it is our interpretation that is faulty and we would do well to go back to the Bible to check our facts.

Conclusion

So, drawing together all the threads of this article and the previous article dealing with both Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8-10, the conclusion is clear.

The whole of Romans 14 is about food: eating meat or being vegetarian, fasting or not fasting, on certain days or any day or none. It is obvious from the foregoing that Paul is not speaking of the dietary laws, or interrupting his own argument with a quick line about Sabbaths. He is not abrogating God’s laws, nor is he saying that the laws of clean and unclean meats are no longer in effect, or that we can keep Sabbath on the seventh day, or any day we choose, or no Sabbath at all depending on whether or not we are convinced about it.

What he is saying is meat God has declared clean is fit to eat when bought in the marketplace. If you know for a fact it has been offered to an idol before being sold, then you don’t buy it, because to eat it would be participating in the pagan sacrifice, just as eating the bread and wine makes us participants in the sacrifice of Jesus. However, you need to be cautious when exercising your right to eat meat from the marketplace, because you don’t want to offend a fellow believer or make a weaker brother stumble. While Romans 14 only speaks of ‘eating all things’ vs ‘eating only vegetables’, it is clear from the context that ‘all things’ refers to eating meat as well as vegetables vs being vegetarian. This reasoning is made plain when you read Romans 14 in conjunction with 1 Corinthians 8-10.

Secondly, while some might want to fast on certain days because they consider them more holy than other days, you must not make that a hard and fast rule for everyone because not everyone thinks of those days as especially holier than other days. Eating or abstaining from eating is good if done to the glory of God and doesn’t cause arguments among the brethren. These things are not in Torah and therefore are subject to being fully convinced oneself and are legitimately matters of opinion. There is a difference between the commandments of God and the commandments of men.

Everything God has designated as food is clean and fit to eat; manmade rules do not change the nature of the meat, so nothing is ‘unclean of itself’. However, the word used for ‘unclean’ is the word ‘koinos’ which refers to manmade regulations (such as ritual handwashing before eating) and literally means ‘common’ not ‘unclean’ (akathartos). V14 suggests that things are only ‘unclean’ if someone considers them to be unclean. This is why it is important to look at the original Greek, because what Paul actually says is ‘if a person considers something to be common (koinos – not unclean, akathartos), then to him it is common.’ This then does not contradict the law of God at all.

Finally, Paul would not refer to God’s laws as ‘doubtful disputations’ or ‘matters of opinion’. Nor would he imply, suggest or state, that we need to be ‘fully convinced in our own minds’ whether or not to obey them. If we subject God’s written laws to our own opinions or to whether we are fully convinced about doing them or not, we are setting ourselves up in judgment over God and His commandments. Paul states that the law is holy, righteous and good and we do not nullify it by our faith in Jesus. Therefore, he is not himself nullifying God’s commandments by what he is teaching.

Further reading:
https://casefortorah.com/romans-chapter-14.html This article is a very good overview of what we have been discussing in Romans 14

https://www.tetzetorah.com/romans-14-unplugged  I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it is a well thought out discussion of the subject of Romans 14

https://truthignitedministry.wordpress.com/romans-14-food-faith-and-fasting/

https://truthignitedministry.wordpress.com/the-key-to-divine-health/