Romans 14: Who is the weak brother?
NKJV) Romans 14:1 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for Elohim has received him.
Here we are told to receive one who is weak in the faith. For centuries, traditional Christianity has taught that this weak person is one who is still hanging onto so called "ceremonial" commandments in the law of YHWH such as Sabbath observance and refraining from eating unclean animals as outlined in the 11th chapter of Leviticus.
If this were the case, we would need to classify Peter (Kepha) as one who is 'weak in faith.' For when YHWH gave him a vision in Acts chapter 10, Kepha said "I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
This was many years after Messiah's resurrection. So was Kepha/Peter weak in faith? I think not:
Acts 3:6 - Then Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Yeshua the Messiah of Nazareth, rise up and walk." 7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
This doesn't sound like a man who is "weak in faith" to me. It was through faith that this man was healed. And didn't Yeshua pray that Kepha's faith would not fail?
Luk 22:31-32 - And the Master said, "Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat.
32 "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren."
Consider also that Paul himself would have to be classified as 'weak in faith' if this were the proper interpretation. For his custom was to observe the Sabbath:
Acts 17:2 -Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
It can be shown that the disciples all kept the Sabbath 84 times in the New Testament. Were they all weak in faith also? I think not!
This is only the beginning of why I am fully persuaded that what is being talked about in Romans 14 could not be about the eating of unclean meats like pork or Sabbath breaking. It appears that the actual situation in Rome has to do with meat offered to idols.
However, this is not evident just by looking at the first few verses of Romans. We must read through the whole chapter before we really get an understanding of what is being talked about here.
So who is the one who is "weak in faith?"
In the 8th chapter of 1st Corinthians we read about a situation where they were dealing with weak brethren in relation to food as well:
1Co 8:10-13 - For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?
11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
The subject matter of 1 Corinthians 8 is whether or not it is appropriate to eat food that was offered to idols. The weak brother was one who had not yet overcome the temptation to worship idols. Let's look at these verses in full context:
1Co 8:1-13 - Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if anyone loves Elohim, this one is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other Elohim but one.
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
6 yet for us there is one Elohim, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Master Yeshua Messiah, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
8 But food does not commend us to Elohim; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.
10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols?
11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
If you didn't read the above chapter, please read it fully.
Notice that the strong brother is one who has knowledge that an "idol is nothing" whereas a weak brother is still being faced with temptations that the idol might actually be something deserving of honor or worship. The advice Paul gives in this situation is identical to the advice he gives in Romans 14. Namely, that while an idol is nothing, we should not do anything to cause another person to stumble. Consider the parallel here:
Rom 14:15 - Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Messiah died.
1Co 8:11-12 - And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
And again:
Rom 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
1Co 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
So we have almost identical statements coming out of both chapters. The verses in 1 Corinthians are more descriptive in that he is specifically speaking of food offered to idols, but Romans 14 is a bit more vague and open to interpretation.
or this reason, traditional Christianity has taught Romans 14 justifies Sabbath breaking and eating unclean animals.
But lets continue looking at the situation in Corinth and try to get a deeper understanding of Paul's expectations with them:
1Co 10:24-26 - Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being.
25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake;
26 for "the earth is YHWH's, and all its fullness." (quoting Psalm 24:1)
We see here that Paul didn't think it was necessary to ask questions about the origin of meats in the marketplace, for all animals belong to YHWH. If we with a pure heart are eating an animal that YHWH has not forbidden us to eat then surely there is no sin in that. The problem was that the believers in Corinth (and also in Rome) were surrounded by paganism.
1Cor 10:27 - If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
This phrase "eat what is set before you" is not a new one. Yeshua the Messiah used it when sending out the seventy:
Luke 10:8 - "Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
9 "And heal the sick there, and say to them, `The kingdom of YHWH has come near to you.'
Certainly He was not suggesting that they could eat pork. Those who believe He would are contradicting their own theology because this was still during the time before the Messiah died for our sins. The laws against eating pork were in place, and the Messiah would not have told His disciples that they could eat pork if they wanted to.
He's simply giving them the same advice that Paul is gave:
1Cor 10:27 - If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake.
28 But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is YHWH's, and all its fullness."
29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience?
Notice that this Psalm 24 scripture "the earth is YHWH's and all its fullness" is quoted to support the idea of not needing to ask questions for conscience sake in terms of meat being offered to idols, but then it is quoted to support one's refusal to eat the meat because someone mentioned it was offered to an idol. Why would this scripture support both of these views?
By eating the food offered to an idol, the other person might believe that you don't really acknowledge "the earth is YHWH's and all its fullness." Knowing that all things were created by YHWH is the key to proving that all the idols are worthless because YHWH truly has made all things.
Continuing...
1Cor 10:30 - But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?
If we are giving thanks to YHWH for our food, which He has created, we are acknowledging it was He who has given us these things.
1Cor 10:31 - Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of YHWH.
This is the whole point of what is being said to those in Corinth. Even though we recognize an idol is nothing, we do not want to eat anything that might cause YHWH to be looked upon with a lesser degree of glory. For truly the earth is YHWH's!
So while we need not ask questions for conscience sake, we certainly should not go to the other extreme and start eating meat in an idol's temple. And we should not eat it if doing so might wound another person's conscience.
Thus, we see an example of a weaker brother in the city of Corinth and we have a very similar situation in the city of Rome. However, the believers in Rome are more knowledgeable about YHWH than those in Corinth.
Paul told the ones in Corinth:
1Cor 15:34 - Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of YHWH. I speak this to your
.
But those in Rome Paul said:
Romans 15:14 - Now I myself am confident concerning you, my brethren, that you also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.
By this, we could conclude that what we see in Rome is a more advanced situation than the one in Corinth. With this in mind lets get back to the situation in Romans. Here is verse 1 again:
Romans 14:1 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
So again here in Romans we are dealing with a weak brother. There will always be new believers coming into the congregation, so the older and more knowledgeable believers need to lead them along gently.
Both the Corinthian and Roman assemblies have the common thread of needing to help weaker brethren.
Romans 14:2 - For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
Here is a very key verse. Clearly it is talking about vegetarianism. The weak person is the one eating vegetables. The question is, why is this person considered to be weak?
In Rome there were over 400 pagan temples. If one were to go to the marketplace to buy meat, quite possibly nearly all the meat would have came from a temple sacrifice somewhere. Thus, if a weak brother wanted to avoid thinking of an idol when eating meat, he would need to eliminate eating meat at all.
To me, this explanation makes the most sense. It would explain why the vegetarian was 'one who is weak' and it would explain why there are parallel statements like these I quoted earlier:
Rom 14:15 - Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Messiah died.
1Co 8:11-12 - And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Messiah died?
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Messiah.
And again:
Rom 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
1Co 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
When reading this chapter, it is evident that Paul and the Roman assembly are aware the issue, but we are left to figure out what it is. It is much like listening to one side of a phone conversation. We hear Paul, but we don't know what the Romans would have said to him or what they might have said to him in the past.
But either way, keep in mind that these are disputes over 'doubtful things' or disputable matters that aren't really that important. Based on Paul's own statements in Romans, the commandments of YHWH would not be among the doubtful or disputable matters. His view of the law was that it actually defines sin:
Rom 7:7 - I would not have known sin except through the law.
Rom 3:20 - by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom 3:31 - Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
Rom 8:6-7 - For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim; for it is not subject to the law of Elohim, nor indeed can be.
Each of these verses have a context which I deal with thoroughly in other studies, but it's indisputable that it is the law which teaches us what sin actually is and that those who are spiritually minded will subject themselves to it. He would not turn around and say in Romans 14 that whether or not we keep the commandments found in the law are "doubtful" or disputable things.
Remember the situation with the 'weak' brother in the Corinthian assembly? This persons faith was hindered by his temptation to follow an idol. But it appears to be a more advanced situation in Rome. Brothers have taken more of a stance on both sides of the issue and are getting into "disputes" over it.
Rom 14:1-4 - Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things.
2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.
3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for Elohim has received him.
4 Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Elohim is able to make him stand.
So it seems that what is being said here is that they should not judge one another based on this issue. The Roman assembly apparently had a division on this. Those who ate meat from the marketplace were condemned by those who refused to eat anything (for fear it might have been offered to an idol) and likewise the weaker ones were judging those who were eating meat from the marketplace because it may have been offered to an idol.
Romans 14:5 - One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 He who observes the day, observes it to YHWH; and he who does not observe the day, to YHWH he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to YHWH, for he gives YHWH thanks; and he who does not eat, to YHWH he does not eat, and gives YHWH thanks.
There are various theories on these 2 verses. One theory states that this is talking about the Sabbath. There are several reasons why I believe that this is not so. They are:
•This chapter is about 'doubtful things'. Commandments of YHWH are not doubtful things, especially when YHWH writes them with His own finger.
•There is no mention of the Sabbath in this chapter.
•This stance does not agree with other scriptures that uphold the Sabbath. In order to believe this, you would have to inject it into the text, based on a preconceived belief. We cannot use Romans 14:5 alone as our basis for setting aside the Sabbath.
•The alternative to esteeming one day above another is to esteem "every day." If this were talking about the Sabbath, it would mean that every day is a day of rest and we would not be able to work at all.
•It isn't man who makes the Sabbath day above all other days. It is YHWH who sanctified and blessed the 7th day when He created the world. We are just commanded to keep it sanctified so that it is not defiled.
•It would disregard other passages in the book of Romans such as Romans 8:7 which says "the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim; for it is not subject to the law." Thus, it cannot be referring to the observance of days which the law specifically tell us to observe. This chapter is about doubtful or disputable things. Unless we want to be "at enmity" with YHWH, there are no other sides of the issue to dispute.
Since this is talking about the observance of days which are outside the law, one possibility would be that it is referring to days on which one should fast. This does have support in the text because the scripture says:
Romans 14:6 - He who observes the day, observes it to YHWH; and he who does not observe the day, to YHWH he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to YHWH, for he gives YHWH thanks; and he who does not eat, to YHWH he does not eat, and gives YHWH thanks.
Paul could be referring back to his earlier statement in verse 3 where he who "does not eat" is the vegetarian, but this is not necessarily certain. Remember, we are listening to one side of a phone conversation.
One of the traditions of the Pharisees in that day was to fast twice a week:
Luke 18:11 - "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `Elohim, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 `I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'
To my knowledge, these are the only extra-biblical days mentioned in scripture which would be observed "to YHWH." Also Yeshua expected that His disciples would fast:
Luke 5:34 - And He said to them, "Can you make the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? 35 "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them; then they will fast in those days."
If it is speaking of fast days, the context of this whole chapter would to have one common thread: FOOD. This would explain why later says the kingdom of Elohim is not about eating and drinking (vs. 17).
Continuing on....
Romans 14:7 - For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.
8 For if we live, we live to YHWH; and if we die, we die to YHWH. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are YHWH's.
9 For to this end the Messiah died and rose and lived again, that He might be Master of both the dead and the living.
10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the Messiah.
11 For it is written: "As I live, says YHWH, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to YHWH."
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to YHWH.
13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
So Paul did not condemn those who refused eat meat. He never condemned the brothers in Corinth for refusing to eat meat either. If he had, it might have caused that brother to stumble because those who had a consciousness of the idol would eat it "as a thing offered to an idol" and their conscience, being weak, would be defiled. Paul wanted those in Rome to keep this in mind.
What was condemned here was the attitude of the stronger brother toward the weaker one.
Romans 14:14 - I know and am convinced by the Master Yeshua that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
The actual word rendered "unclean" is from #2839 'Koinos,' which means "common." The word is used in other places such as
Act 2:44 - Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common <2839>.
It's a term designating every day, regular things which are not consecrated. Some Jews in Messiah's day believed that such things were to be avoided, but there was no biblical basis for their claims:
Mar 7:2-4 - Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled <2839>., that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault.
3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders.
4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches
There is nothing in the scriptures which tell us our hands are defiled unless we wash them prior to eating. This was a "tradition of the elders." This is the only other instance of this word #2839 'Koinos' in relation to eating food. Therefore, the "Koinos" spoken of in Romans 14:14 is not speaking about pork or other biblically unclean meats. It's speaking of the 'tradition of the elders' and how they regarded the marketplace as being a place which would make your hands 'common' and in need of a special kind of handwashing. Messiah told them:
Mat 15:19-20 - "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
20 "These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man."
The Jews of that time period believed that if a clean animal such as an ox were offered to an idol, that would automatically cause the meat to be impure or common. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica under the heading "Purity" it says:
"In the case of idolatrous offerings the law is even stricter than the impurity of the idol itself and Judah b. Bava says that it conveys impurity by overshadowing, as does a corpse"
But Paul, a former Pharisee himself, was persuaded by Yeshua that that these things were not "common" at all and in fact nothing really is. There really isn't a separate class of items called "common" in the bible in the sense that they need to be avoided.
The scriptures already supply us with correct classifications of what is clean and what is unclean. We don't need a special set of laws, especially ones based on traditions of men, to make other classifications of things we must avoid in order to be "clean." Thus the scripture should actually read:
Romans 14:14 - I know and am convinced by the Master Yeshua that there is nothing common of itself; but to him who considers anything to be common, to him it is common.
15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom the Messiah died.
So here in Romans 14 we evidently have a situation where there are Jewish believers avoiding meat because they viewed it as "common," Gentile believers avoiding meat because they were weak in their conscience and couldn't help but think of the idol, and other stronger believers who had fully cleansed their conscience of both Jewish tradition and Gentile tendencies toward idol worship.
But those who were more mature in their faith were acting immature in other ways, for they were partaking of that food in such a way that it would weaken and grieve new converts who, in their weaknesses, would be tempted to return to their former ways. To cause stumbling in a brother is a failure to love.
So if what we choose to eat would not bring honor to YHWH but would harm our brother who is weak in faith then surely that is not the will of YHWH.
Romans 14:16 - Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil;
17 for the kingdom of YHWH is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he who serves the Messiah in these things is acceptable to YHWH and approved by men.
19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another.
20 Do not destroy the work of YHWH for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.
Now some would point out that Paul said "All things are indeed pure" and consider that to be proof that we can now eat unclean animals.
However, notice that the context of verse 20 is that Paul doesn't want to see a brother destroyed over "food." There isn't a single verse in the bible that would classify unclean animals as "food." Actually there are numerous places in the bible where it says just the opposite. So among things that are considered to be "food," all things are indeed pure.
This is why Yeshua could say to the Jewish people that "all things are clean" in Luke 11:39, for he was speaking within the context of food. In the Jewish mind, pork and shellfish were never food to begin with.
Another point is that when verse 20 says that "all things are pure" we do need to be careful with assuming "all things" really means "ALL THINGS" in the sense of never having a single exception.
For instance:
Col 3:22 - Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing Elohim.
What if a slaveowner told his slave to go and murder someone? Or to go and commit adultery? It does say "All things," yet we make an exception for the obvious because we know Paul would not be telling slaves to obey their masters rather than YHWH. YHWH's word provides the parameter from which we understand the exceptions involved.
Here's another example of where "all" doesn't literally mean "ALL":
Rom 16:19 - For your obedience has become known to all. Therefore I am glad on your behalf; but I want you to be wise in what is good, and simple concerning evil.
Did every human being on the planet know about the obedience of the believers in Rome? It says "all," yet we know just from common sense that he didn't really mean all.
Even in our own language, "all" doesn't always mean "all."
For instance, if I said that my daughter ate "all" of her breakfast, it may be possible that she left a few crumbs on her plate. So, even in our own language "all" CAN mean "all", but it doesn't always mean "all" without a exceptions.
We have to understand context, don't we? We can't just look at a verse which says "all things are pure" and assume, based on a western Gentile mindset that we understand what the obvious exceptions are.
Here's another:
Titus 1:15 - To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defil
Does this mean that if I'm a pure person, I can look at a pile of buzzard droppings, or rotting corpses and say, "wow, how pure! Pure as the wind driven snow!"
Or would we say that sexual immorality is pure? How about murder? Certainly not.
We know that sexual immorality and murder are not pure because YHWH's word already tells us that these things are not pure.
So when we look at this verse:
Rom 14:20 - "All things indeed are pure"
...we should not assume that Paul is speaking against what YHWH already said was is impure and unclean.
No one, not even Paul can go against scripture. YHWH's word is not divided against itself. We don't have contradictions in the bible.
For this reason, we have to work within the obvious parameters of what YHWH has already said, and what would have been "common sense" to a first century Jew when it comes to understanding the obvious exceptions.
The concept of clean/unclean did not come from the Levitical law. Noah was told to take 7 of all clean animals on the ark with him and 2 of the unclean. Noah knew the difference because it was common knowledge even in his day.
So the context of Romans 14:20 has everything to do with real "food" (clean meats) and the unnecessary and unbiblical classification of clean meats becoming "common" and thus needing to be avoided for that reason.
Romans 14:21 - It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.
This is where Paul actually clarifies that he is talking about meat offered to idols. It is hidden from our eyes by translation but it is nonetheless there! Let's look at the Greek word that is translated "meat" here...
BDB/Thayers # 2907 kreas {kreh'-as} perhaps a primary word;; n n AV - flesh 2; 2
1) (the) flesh (of a sacrificed animal)
In fact it is this same word that is used in 1Corinthians:
1Cor 8:13 - Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat <2907> , lest I make my brother stumble.
This is the only 2 places in the New Testament where this Greek word is used. In both cases the context was concerning meat offered to idols.
Romans 14:22 - Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before YHWH. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
If one has any doubts about the earth being YHWH's and the fullness therein...and are tempted by the idol, this person would be condemned if he eats. Since this is exactly what was taught in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, and the striking parallels between what he said to Corinth and what he said to Rome, it seems very obvious to me that both are speaking of the same things. But in Rome, there were more Jews and we have both Jews and Gentiles bringing their "baggage" and thought patterns into the true faith, both of which were based on traditions and ideas of men. The Jews had their fast days and concerns about otherwise clean meats becoming "common," and Gentiles had their tendencies toward idolatry. The stronger believer had fully cleansed their minds of these patterns, but they were warned to walk in love, and not do things to cause weakness in others.
Paul at no time during this chapter considers 'liberty' a license to sin. By the law is the knowledge of sin, and sin is defined as "transgression of the law" (KJV 1John 3:4). If we eat things that the law has said are "abominations" and should not be eaten, we are transgressing the law.
So we can't throw out the whole of scripture that teaches against sin because of a one sided conversation in Romans! It can not be proven that this chapter is speaking of unclean meats. But it CAN be proven that is not. There are many other passages that teach we should keep the commandments. Here is one example in scripture that shows YHWH's concern for people who eat unclean animals:
Isa 66:15-18 - For behold, YHWH will come with fire And with His chariots, like a whirlwind, To render His anger with fury, And His rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For by fire and by His sword YHWH will judge all flesh; And the slain of YHWH shall be many.
17 "Those who sanctify themselves and purify themselves, To go to the gardens After an idol in the midst, Eating swine's flesh and the abomination and the mouse, Shall be consumed together," says YHWH.
18 "For I know their works and their thoughts. It shall be that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come and see My glory.
This is what YHWH says he will do when He comes and judges the world with fire. This has not occurred yet. So yes, YHWH is still concerned that we do not eat things that are abominations to Him. There are a few things in YHWH's word that He considers to be an abomination. Eating the flesh of animals that He did not create us to eat is one of them.
If we are or have been ignorant of this, YHWH takes into consideration that our hearts are yielded to His will, even if we have not fully understood His will for our lives. He can save us in spite of our lack of knowledge, so I do not condemn those who are uninformed or don't see the things that I happen to see.
But if one has been using Romans 14 as justification for Sabbath breaking and eating swine's flesh, and working under the assumption that those things were done away with when Messiah died for our sins, I do not see anything in Romans 14 that would prove such a concept. And the concept directly contradicts other scriptures, not only in the prophets, but also within the book of Romans itself.
We all know that the Messiah will return and at that time all the world will be under the New Covenant reign for 1000 years:
Isa 66:22-24 - "For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me," says YHWH, "So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me," says YHWH.
24 "And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
We need to take a hard look at these things and realize that the Sabbath and even the New Moons will be among the observances during the New Covenant reign of Messiah. It is those who have "transgressed against" Him that will be judged. Since He is destroying those who eat swine's flesh and He is re-establishing worship days on the Sabbath and New Moons, it is obvious to me that sin is still "transgression of the law" (kjv 1John 3:4) and Paul in Romans 14 cannot be suggesting that we can eat swine's flesh and break the Sabbath. Otherwise, he would be leading the Romans to transgression and setting themselves to be at "enmity" with YHWH, leading them to have a carnal mind which is "not subject to the law of Elohim, nor indeed can be," Romans 8:6-7.
Let's not wait until the Messiah has to set our theology straight when He returns and re-establishes the law of YHWH as being the law of the land, let's seek to subject ourselves to it today, while cleaving to the understanding that it is only by grace that we are saved. For while the law can save no one, we are called to live as Messiah lived and walk as He walked. He was not a Sabbath breaker or swine eater. And He who is the same yesterday, today and forever now wants to manifest His life through us. Let's allow Him to do that.
and is translated into many different words such as: Arrived (11), Bring (246), Brought (255), Came (590), Come (511), Comes (90), Coming (106), Enter (127), Entered (74), Entering (14), Enters (16), Entrance (10), Go (147), Goes (17), Went (109) and many other words as well with less than 10 occurrences. 
. 
