I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil (Romans 16:19).

In Paul's final instructions to the Roman Christians, he warns them against false teaching and commends their reputation of obedience. Then he asserts a principle that should guide all their behavior, namely, that they should be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

Let's unpack this.

Wisdom is built on prior knowledge and understanding that is honed by deliberate practice over time. One dictionary definition of wisdom is "the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting." Wisdom in the moral and spiritual realm, therefore, suggests maturity:

But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5:14).

Therefore, I take biblical wisdom to involve deliberate and focused practice in knowing and applying God's Word over time.

But how about the second part of Paul's instruction: "Be innocent in what is evil"?

Innocence is not the opposite of wisdom. Foolishness and ignorance would be the opposite of wisdom, but innocence suggests blamelessness and purity, a freedom from any guilt. Therefore, it is not right to take Paul's instruction as a mandate to keep ourselves ignorant of evil. After all, Paul elsewhere based his instructions on their awareness of Satan's schemes (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:11). Innocence, therefore, does not suggest lack of awareness of evil or the evil one.

But here's where a distinction needs to be made. While innocence does not require ignorance of evil, it does necessitate inexperience with evil. Knowing about evil does not remove innocence, but practicing evil does.

But can one really know what evil is without actually experiencing it first hand? This sort of logic has led many not only to lose their innocence but also to be entrapped by sin. This sort of logic has led many parents to throw their innocent children into the wilds of public school, where they can "experience" the evils of "peer pressure," "drugs and alcohol," "immorality" and all manner of other sinful behavior. They think that doing this will make their children wise. But throwing simple-minded kids into a sin-infested environment does not hone wisdom, but it does entrench folly.

No one would accuse the Lord Jesus of being ignorant of evil, yet He was innocent of evil (cf. John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15). Therefore, we can know what is wrong without ever practicing it ourselves.

Now, you might ask, how do we know evil without experiencing evil? Consider this. We know murder is wrong without ever seeing it first hand. We know adultery is wrong without ever experiencing the pain and anger it causes. We know evil as evil from the Word of God. God's Word puts every moral act in its proper context. We do not need to put ourselves or our children into the context of "real-world" experience for us to understand evil, for often the world presents many evils in a more acceptable light, so that rather than moral clarity, we only get moral confusion.

Therefore, I take Paul's call to innocence to involve knowing evil from a biblical perspective so that we avoid it in every way.

Friends, and especially parents among you, I encourage you to be wise in what is good, that is, take deliberate steps to learn and apply the Word of God and teach your children to learn and apply the moral and spiritual truths of God's Word to their lives. I encourage you also to know what is evil from a biblical perspective so that you will always practice what is good and train your children to do the same.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Romans 16:19 joins two qualities that can appear opposed: wisdom concerning good and innocence concerning evil. The surrounding warning concerns divisive teaching and deceptive speech (16:17–18). Paul is not encouraging believers to become easy to deceive. He wants a community capable of recognizing what is good without becoming practiced in the wrongdoing it must recognize. The original’s central distinction is therefore helpful: knowledge of evil need not require participation in it.

Hebrews 5:14, rather than verse 13, describes mature people whose discernment is trained through use. Wisdom grows through the exercise of judgment, not through the accumulation of facts alone. Yet the practice in view is learning to distinguish and choose faithfully, not deliberately committing wrong in order to understand it. A physician need not cause an injury to understand it, and a person need not betray a spouse to know that betrayal is destructive. Moral learning can proceed through instruction, observation, testimony, and careful reflection.

The word “experience” nevertheless requires precision. Being harmed by someone else does not make a victim morally guilty of the harm. A child exposed to violence has not thereby lost innocence in the same sense as the perpetrator. Nor is every encounter with a difficult environment an act of participation in its wrongdoing. The original’s language about inexperience should therefore be directed toward culpable practice rather than used to stigmatize people whose lives have included suffering they did not choose.

The application to schooling also goes beyond what Romans 16 directly establishes. Families may choose public, private, or home education for varied reasons, and no setting guarantees either corruption or wisdom. Children need protection appropriate to their age and vulnerability, but they also need truthful preparation, trustworthy adults, and opportunities to practice sound judgment. A broad accusation against one educational setting can distract from the concrete responsibilities present in every setting. The question is how a child is being taught, supported, and protected, not whether a label alone settles the matter.

Jesus provides the decisive correction to the idea that one must sin to understand sinners. His sinlessness does not make him indifferent to temptation, suffering, or moral danger. Hebrews 4:15 grounds confidence in his sympathy without attributing sin to him. For adults and children alike, this means that boundaries can be joined to compassion rather than fear or superiority. We can learn enough about harmful practices to recognize and resist them without cultivating fascination or pretending they are harmless. The goal is a practiced love of what is good: attention to Scripture, honest conversation, wise choices, and readiness to seek help. Innocence so understood is not fragile ignorance. It is integrity guarded and strengthened by a growing capacity to discern.

Romans 14

1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.

Another way this has made sense to me is to say don't quarrel over styles and preferences. I think even what is right and acceptable is often quarreled over needlessly. "Should we give the homeless man $100 or $35?" Why argue over this? Give! Encourage for maturity but don't needlessly dwell on the good “A” or good “B”.

Teach, encourage, and edify, but we should be cautious not to divide over good and 'gooder.' Leave this division for evils.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Romans 14 begins with welcome rather than a demand that every difference of judgment be resolved before fellowship can exist. The original applies this to disputes over preferences and over which of two good actions is better. That is a useful extension of Paul’s concern: a community can waste its energy turning every difference into a test of loyalty. The desire to improve an action should not become a habit of withholding encouragement until everyone acts exactly as we would.

The immediate issues in the chapter, however, involve more than aesthetic taste. Food and the observance of days are matters of conscience for the believers concerned. Some fear that an action dishonors God, while others understand themselves to have freedom. Paul calls both to recognize the Lord’s claim on the other person. The stronger believer must not despise, and the more scrupulous believer must not condemn. The disagreement is addressed within a shared belonging to Christ.

The example of giving different amounts to a homeless person makes the principle concrete. There may be good reasons to consider the amount, the person’s stated need, or the best form of help. Thoughtful discussion is not automatically quarrelsome. The problem arises when debate displaces generosity or when a person’s sincere act of care is belittled simply because someone else would choose differently. Wisdom should serve love, not become a sophisticated reason to do nothing.

Paul also places limits on the exercise of freedom. Romans 14:13–21 asks believers to consider whether their conduct becomes a stumbling block and to pursue peace and mutual edification. Being able to defend a choice in the abstract does not settle whether it is loving in a particular setting. The mature response may involve restraint for another person’s good. This is not surrender to every demand, but a willingness to consider more than one’s own entitlement.

The original’s contrast between good and better should therefore remain joined to discernment about actual harm. Romans 14 is not a command to treat exploitation, dishonesty, or abuse as harmless preferences. Nor does it require ignoring evidence that a well-intended action is producing injury. The category of disputable matters must be used carefully, with attention to Scripture and the people affected.

A practical habit is to ask whether the disagreement concerns a clear moral obligation, a genuine matter of conscience, or a preference about method. Then speak with a level of insistence appropriate to that distinction. We can explain our reasons, learn from another perspective, and still welcome a fellow believer whose faithful action takes a different form. The kingdom’s life is not measured by victory in every small argument. It is expressed in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, with love giving our discernment its purpose.

Romans 14–15 addresses the issue prominent throughout Acts — the transitional struggle between Jewish and Gentile believers. Here "the one whose faith is weak" (Romans 14:1; 15:1) refers to the Jewish believer, since the Gentile believers have no food restrictions as the Jewish believers think they have (see Romans 14:3).

The Jew must not judge the Gentile, and the Gentile must not look down on the Jew. The overriding message is mutual edification (Romans 14:19; 15:2). There are more important matters than these ritual distinctions (Romans 14:17). And even though the Gentile believers are right in what they believe, it would be wrong to flaunt that freedom so as to cause Jewish believers to stumble — violating conscience or leaving the fellowship (see Romans 14:20–21).

The primary audience of these chapters appears to be Gentile, though there are probably some Jews among them. In chapter 15 the Gentiles are directly addressed regarding bearing with the failings of the weak, and encouraged to accommodate rather than to please themselves. When Paul cites Scripture, the citations directed to Gentiles outnumber those to Jews. In Romans 15:14–22 he reaffirms his apostleship to the Gentiles.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The identification of the weak with Jewish believers is a common reading and fits the food-and-days specifics well, though it is not the only one — some interpreters see the disputes as involving Gentile converts with scruples about meat previously offered to idols, and others read the categories as deliberately unlabeled so the instruction would travel. Paul notably never names either group in the chapter, which may itself be the point.

The comment's central observation is the important one and bears repeating: the obligation falls on those who are right. Paul settles the disputed question in chapter 14 — he is persuaded that nothing is unclean in itself — and then instructs the party holding the correct view to accommodate the other. Being right about a secondary matter does not confer the right to press it at someone else's cost.

Worth adding the standard Paul gives for the whole discussion. He tells them each to be fully convinced in their own mind, not to despise or judge, and to do what they do to the Lord — which leaves the disputed questions genuinely disputed while removing them as grounds for contempt in either direction.

Paul writes about stronger Christians bearing with the failings of newer or weaker ones. Earlier he addressed converts holding onto certain practices from the Mosaic Law — matters of food and of observing particular days.

Those who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not please themselves. Each should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give them the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, so that with one mind and one voice they may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God (a paraphrase of Romans 15:1–7).

Paul preaches the importance of unity through forgiveness and carrying each other's burdens. Unity of all believers, new and old, was his message — that they might worship with one voice. Unity is a frequent topic at our church, because disunity can tear a church apart and push new believers away. It starts with mature believers setting aside their rights to avoid unnecessary conflict that harms the larger body. Having been part of our church for several years, I see that disunity is a constant threat — it often begins with disagreement and pride, complaints and gossip, hurt feelings and unforgiveness.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The direction of the obligation is the striking feature of Paul's argument, and the comment gets it right. The burden falls on the person who is correct. Paul has already established in chapter 14 that nothing is unclean in itself — the strong are right on the disputed question — and then instructs them to accommodate the ones who are wrong.

That is an unusual arrangement and worth naming, because the instinct runs the other way: those with the better argument generally expect deference rather than owing it. Paul's reasoning is that being right about a secondary matter does not confer the right to wound someone over it, and he anchors this in Christ, who did not please Himself. The conflicts this dissolves are not the ones where truth is at stake but the ones where a settled question is being used as leverage.

Romans 14 sounds, on the surface, almost like a postmodern "what's true for you is true for you" kind of passage. But throughout it, Paul still announces there's a right way, real absolutes (e.g., vv. 1, 4, 14, 20).

The word "judge" can be misunderstood. Jesus tells us in Luke 6:37 not to judge or condemn — we're not to do those things. But we are meant to discern and identify what's righteous and good, and gain something through that discernment (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 5:10; Hebrews 5:14).

"Judging" carries a call to action — retribution, condemnation, exacting payment. Genesis shows us who actually fills that role: a judge who takes condemning action (Genesis 18:25) — but that role isn't ours to fill.

The whole chapter's point rests on its final line: whatever doesn't come from faith is sin. When verse 15 speaks of grieving a brother, meaning failing to walk in love, it's referring to a brother "weak in faith" — and failing to walk in love here means putting a stumbling block in front of someone.

The opposite of "weakness in faith" appears in verse 5 — each person should be fully convinced in their own mind. A John Piper commentary I read brought real clarity here, pointing out that Paul's point isn't to waffle for anyone's sake, since that would actually cause some to sin by not acting out of genuine faith. It's better to act out of faith even if mistaken(!) than to do good deeds without faith — since acting in faith is what gives God honor and thanks.

Paul isn't saying those who avoid meat are correct for avoiding it — only that it's better for them not to eat it if abstaining is how they honor the Lord (v. 6). But among those strong in faith, let their minds be fully convinced, without self-doubt (vv. 22–23; James 1:6–8), so their unwavering faith keeps them from sinning.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The distinction this comment draws between forbidden condemnation and required discernment maps closely onto a similar contrast Paul makes elsewhere: believers are told not to judge outsiders at all, since that's God's business, while still being expected to judge — meaning evaluate and hold accountable — those inside the church (a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 5:12–13). Romans 14's warning against judging fellow believers over disputable matters like diet isn't a blanket ban on all discernment within the church; it's specifically aimed at matters where Scripture itself leaves room for genuine, faith-driven differences, which is precisely why Paul frames the whole issue around each person's own conviction before God, rather than a fixed rule everyone must follow identically.