Romans 14:1

We have in this chapter,

I. An account of the unhappy contention which had broken out in the Christian church. Our Master had foretold that offences would come; and, it seems, so they did, for want of that wisdom and love which would have prevented discord, and kept up union among them.

1. There was a difference among them about the distinction of meats and days; these are the two things specified. There might be other similar occasions of difference, while these made the most noise, and were most taken notice of. The case was this: The members of the Christian church at Rome were some of them originally Gentiles, and others of them Jews. We find Jews at Rome believing, Act 28:24. Now those that had been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial appointments touching meats and days. This, which had been bred in the bone with them, could hardly be got out of the flesh, even after they turned Christians; especially with some of them, who were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They were not well instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ, and therefore retained the ceremonial institutions, and practised accordingly; while other Christians that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian liberty, made no such difference. (1.) Concerning meats (Rom 14:2): One believeth that he may eat all things - he is well satisfied that the ceremonial distinction of meats into clean and unclean is no longer in force, but that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; nothing unclean of itself, Rom 14:14. This he was assured of, not only from the general tenour and scope of the gospel, but particularly from the revelation which Peter, the apostle of the circumcision (and therefore more immediately concerned in it), had to this purport, Act 10:15, Act 10:28. This the strong Christian is clear in, and practises accordingly, eating what is set before him, and asking no question for conscience' sake, Co1 10:27. On the other hand, another, who is weak, is dissatisfied in this point, is not clear in his Christian liberty, but rather inclines to think that the meats forbidden by the law remain still unclean; and therefore, to keep at a distance from them, he will eat no flesh at all, but eateth herbs, contenting himself with only the fruits of the earth. See to what degrees of mortification and self-denial a tender conscience will submit. None know but those that experience it how great both the restraining and the constraining power of conscience is. (2.) Concerning days, Rom 14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another - kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal 4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.

2. It was not so much the difference itself that did the mischief as the mismanagement of the difference, making it a bone of contention. (1.) Those who were strong, and knew their Christian liberty, and made use of it, despised the weak, who did not. Whereas they should have pitied them, and helped them, and afforded them meek and friendly instruction, they trampled upon them as silly, and humoursome, and superstitious, for scrupling those things which they knew to be lawful: so apt are those who have knowledge to be puffed up with it, and to look disdainfully and scornfully upon their brethren. (2.) Those who were weak, and durst not use their Christian liberty, judged and censured the strong, who did, as if they were loose Christians, carnal professors, that cared not what they did, but walked at all adventures, and stuck at nothing. They judged them as breakers of the law, contemners of God's ordinance, and the like. Such censures as these discovered a great deal of rashness and uncharitableness, and would doubtless tend much to the alienating of affection. Well, this was the disease, and we see it remaining in the church to this day; the like differences, in like manner mismanaged, are still the disturbers of the church's peace. But,

II. We have proper directions and suggestions laid down for allaying this contention, and preventing the ill consequences of it. The apostle, as a wise physician, prescribes proper remedies for the disease, which are made up of rules and reasons. Such gentle methods does he take, with such cords of a man does he draw them together; not by excommunicating, suspending, and silencing either side, but by persuading them both to a mutual forbearance: and as a faithful daysman he lays his hand upon them both, reasoning the case with the strong that they should not be so scornful, and with the weak that they should not be so censorious. If the contending parties will but submit to this fair arbitration, each abate of his rigour, and sacrifice their differences to their graces, all will be well quickly. Let us observe the rules he gives, some to the strong and some to the weak, and some to both, for they are interwoven; and reduce the reasons to their proper rules.

1. Those who are weak must be received, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom 14:1. Take this for a general rule; spend your zeal in those things wherein you and all the people of God are agreed, and do not dispute about matters that are doubtful. Receive him, proslambanesthe - take him to you, bid him welcome, receive him with the greatest affection and tenderness; porrigite manum (so the Syriac): lend him your hand, to help him, to fetch him to you, to encourage him. Receive him into your company, and converse, and communion, entertain him with readiness and condescension, and treat him with all possible endearments. Receive him: not to quarrel with him, and to argue about uncertain points that are in controversy, which will but confound him, and fill his head with empty notions, perplex him, and shake his faith. Let not your Christian friendship and fellowship be disturbed with such vain janglings and strifes of words. - Not to judge his doubtful thoughts (so the margin), "not to pump out his weak sentiments concerning those things which he is in doubt about, that you may censure and condemn him." Receive him, not to expose him, but to instruct and strengthen him. See Co1 1:10; Phi 3:15, Phi 3:16.

2. Those who are strong must by no means despise the weak; nor those who are weak judge the strong, Rom 14:3. This is levelled directly against the fault of each party. It is seldom that any such contention exists but there is a fault on both sides, and both must mend. He argues against both these jointly: we must not despise nor judge our brethren. Why so?

(1.) Because God hath received them; and we reflect upon him if we reject those whom he hath received. God never cast off any one that had true grace, though he was but weak in it; never broke the bruised reed. Strong believers and weak believers, those that eat and those that eat not, if they be true believers, are accepted of God. It will be good for us to put this question to ourselves, when we are tempted to behave scornfully towards our brethren, to disdain and censure them: "Hast not God owned them; and, if he has, dare I disown them?" "Nay, God doth not only receive him, but hold him up, Rom 14:4. You think that he who eateth will fall by his presumption, or that he who eateth not will sink under the weight of his own fears and scruples; but if they have true faith, and an eye to God, the one in the intelligent use of his Christian liberty and the other in the conscientious forbearance of it, they shall be held up - the one in his integrity, and the other in his comfort. This hope is built upon the power of God, for God is able to make him stand; and, being able, no doubt he is willing to exert that power for the preservation of those that are his own." In reference to spiritual difficulties and dangers (our own and others), much of our hope and comfort are grounded upon the divine power, Pe1 1:5; Jde 1:24.

(2.) Because they are servants to their own master (Rom 14:4): Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? We reckon it a piece of ill manners to meddle with other people's servants, and to find fault with them and censure them. Weak and strong Christians are indeed our brethren, but they are not our servants. This rash judging is reproved, Jam 3:1, under the notion of being many masters. We make ourselves our brethren's masters, and do in effect usurp the throne of God, when we take upon us thus to judge them, especially to judge their thoughts and intentions, which are out of our view, to judge their persons and state, concerning which it is hard to conclude by those few indications which fall within our cognizance. God sees not as man sees; and he is their master, and not we. In judging and censuring our brethren, we meddle with that which does not belong to us: we have work enough to do at home; and, if we must needs be judging, let us exercise our faculty upon our own hearts and ways. - To his own master he stands or falls; that is, his doom will be according to his master's sentence, and not according to ours. How well for us is it that we are not to stand nor fall by the judgment one of another, but by the righteous and unerring judgment of God, which is according to truth! "While thy brother's cause is before thy judgment, it is coram non judice - before one who is not the judge; the court of heaven is the proper court for trial, where, and where only, the sentence is definitive and conclusive; and to this, if his heart be upright, he may comfortably appeal from thy rash censure."

(3.) Because both the one and the other, if they be true believers, and are right in the main, have an eye to God, and do approve themselves to God in what they do, Rom 14:6. He that regards the day - that makes conscience of the observance of the Jewish fasts and festivals, not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing to be as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labours, and worshipping God on those days - it is well. We have reason to think, because in other things he conducts himself like a good Christian, that in this also his eye is single, and that he regardeth it unto the Lord; and God will accept of his honest intention, though he be under a mistake about the observance of days; for the sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head: so good a master do we serve. On the other hand, he that regards not the day - that does not make a difference between one day and another, does not call one day holy and another profane, one day lucky and another unlucky, but esteems every day alike - he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother. If he be a good Christian, he does not, he dares not, do it from such a principle; and therefore we charitably conclude that to the Lord he does not regard it. he makes no such difference of days only because he knows God hath made none; and therefore intends his honour in endeavouring to dedicate ever day to him. So for the other instance: He that eateth whatever is set before him, though it be blood, though it be swine's flesh, if it be food convenient for him, he eateth to the Lord. He understands the liberty that God has granted him, and uses it to the glory of God, with an eye to his wisdom and goodness in enlarging our allowance now under the gospel, and taking off the yoke of legal restraints; and he giveth God thanks for the variety of food he has, and the liberty he has to eat it, and that in those things his conscience is not fettered. On the other hand, he that eatest not those meats which were forbidden by the ceremonial law, to the Lord he eateth not. It is for God's sake, because he is afraid of offending God by eating that which he is sure was once prohibited; and he giveth God thanks too that there is enough besides. If he conscientiously deny himself that which he takes to be forbidden fruit, yet he blesses God that of other trees in the garden he may freely eat. Thus, while both have an eye to God in what they do, and approve themselves to him in their integrity, why should either of them be judged or despised? Observe, Whether we eat flesh, or eat herbs, it is a thankful regard to God, the author and giver of all our mercies, that sanctifies and sweetens it. Bishop Sanderson, in his 34th sermon, upon Ti1 4:4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from Co1 10:30) before and after meat was the common known practice of the church, among Christians of all sorts, weak and strong: an ancient, commendable, apostolical, Christian practice, derived down from Christ's example through all the ages of the church, Mat 14:19; Mat 15:36; Luk 9:16; Joh 6:11; Mat 26:26, Mat 26:27; Act 27:35. Blessing the creatures in the name of God before we use them, and blessing the name of God for them after, are both included; for eulogein and eucharistein are used promiscuously. To clear this argument against rash judging and despising, he shows how essential it is to true Christianity to have a regard to God and not to ourselves, which therefore, unless the contrary do manifestly appear, we must presume concerning those that in minor things differ from us. Observe his description of true Christians, taken from their end and aim (Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8), and the ground of it, Rom 14:9.

[1.] Our end and aim: not self, but the Lord. As the particular end specifies the action, so the general scope and tendency specify the state. if we would know what way we walk in, we must enquire what end we walk towards. First, Not to self. We have learned to deny ourselves; this was our first lesson: None of us liveth to himself. This is a thing in which all the people of God are one, however they differ in other things; though some are weak and others are strong, yet both agree in this, not to live to themselves. Not one that hath given up his name to Christ is allowedly a self-seeker; it is contrary to the foundation of true Christianity. We neither live to ourselves nor die to ourselves. We are not our own masters, nor our own proprietors - we are not at our own disposal. The business of our lives is not to please ourselves, but to please God. The business of our deaths, to which we are every day exposed and delivered, is not to make ourselves talked of; we run not such hazards out of vain-glory, while we are dying daily. When we come to die actually, neither is that to ourselves; it is not barely that we would be unclothed, and eased of the burden of the flesh, but it is to the Lord, that we may depart and be with Christ, may be present with the Lord. Secondly, But to the Lord (Rom 14:8), to the Lord Christ, to whom all power and judgment are committed, and in whose name we are taught, as Christians, to do every thing we do (Col 3:17), with an eye to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, Phi 1:21. Christ is the gain we aim at, living and dying. We live to glorify him in all the actions and affairs of life; we die, whether a natural or a violent death, to glorify him, and to go to be glorified with him. Christ is the centre, in which all the lines of life and death do meet. This is true Christianity, which makes Christ all in all. So that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's, devoted to him, depending on him, designed and designing for him. Though some Christians are weak and others strong, - though of different sizes, capacities, apprehensions, and practices, in minor things, yet they are all the Lord's - all eying, and serving, and approving themselves to Christ, and are accordingly owned and accepted of him. Is it for us then to judge or despise them, as if we were their masters, and they were to make it their business to please us, and to stand or fall by our dooms?

[2.] The ground of this, Rom 14:9. It is grounded upon Christ's absolute sovereignty and dominion, which were the fruit and end of his death and resurrection. To this end he both died, and rose, and revived (he, having risen, entered upon a heavenly life, the glory which he had before) that he might be Lord both of dead and living - that he might be universal monarch, Lord of all (Act 10:36), all the animate and inanimate creatures; for he is head over all things to the church. He is Lord of those that are living to rule them, of those that are dead to receive them and raise them up. This was that name above every name which God gave him as the reward of his humiliation, Phi 2:8, Phi 2:9. It was after he had died and risen that he said, All power is given unto me (Mat 28:18), and presently he exerts that power in issuing out commissions, Rom 14:19, Rom 14:20. Now if Christ paid so dearly for his dominion over souls and consciences, and has such a just and undisputed right to exercise that dominion, we must not so much as seem to invade it, nor intrench upon it, by judging the consciences of our brethren, and arraigning them at our bar. When we are ready to reproach and reflect upon the name and memory of those that are dead and gone, and to pass a censure upon them (which some the rather do, because such judgments of the dead are more likely to pass uncontrolled and uncontradicted), we must consider that Christ is Lord of the dead, as well as of the living. If they are dead, they have already given up their account, and let that suffice. And this leads to another reason against judging and despising,

(4.) Because both the one and the other must shortly give an account, Rom 14:10-12. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day would silence all these rash judgings: Why dost thou that art weak judge thy brother that is strong? And why dost thou that art strong set at nought thy brother that is weak? Why is all this clashing, and contradicting, and censuring, among Christians? We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, Co2 5:10. Christ will be the judge, and he has both authority and ability to determine men's eternal state according to their works, and before him we shall stand as persons to be tried, and to give up an account, expecting our final doom from him, which will be eternally conclusive. To illustrate this (Rom 14:11), he quotes a passage out of the Old Testament, which speaks of Christ's universal sovereignty and dominion, and that established with an oath: As I live (saith the Lord), every knee shall bow to me. It is quoted from Isa 45:23. There it is, I have sworn by myself; here it is, As I live. So that whenever God saith As I live, it is to be interpreted as swearing by himself; for it is God's prerogative to have life in himself: there is a further ratification of it there, The word is gone out of my mouth. It is a prophecy, in general, of Christ's dominion; and here very fully applied to the judgment of the great day, which will be the highest and most illustrious exercise of that dominion. Here is a proof of Christ's Godhead: he is the Lord and he is God, equal with the Father. Divine honour is due to him, and must be paid. It is paid to God through him as Mediator. God will judge the world by him, Act 17:31. The bowing of the knee to him, and the confession made with the tongue, are but outward expressions of inward adoration and praise. Every knee and every tongue, either freely or by force.

[1.] All his friends do it freely, are made willing in the day of his power. Grace is the soul's cheerful, entire, and avowed subjection to Jesus Christ. First, Bowing to him - the understanding bowed to his truths, the will to his laws, the whole man to his authority; and this expressed by the bowing of the knee, the posture of adoration and prayer. It is proclaimed before our Joseph, Bow the knee, Gen 41:43. Though bodily exercise alone profits little, yet, as it is guided by inward fear and reverence, it is accepted. Secondly, Confessing to him - acknowledging his glory, grace, and greatness - acknowledging our own meanness and vileness, confessing our sins to him; so some understand it.

[2.] All his foes shall be constrained to do it, whether they will or no. When he shall come in the clouds, and every eye shall see him, then, and not till then, will all those promises which speak of his victories over his enemies and their subjection to him have their full and complete accomplishment; then his foes shall be his footstool, and all his enemies shall lick the dust. hence he concludes (Rom 14:12), Every one of us shall give account of himself to God. We must not give account for others, nor they for us; but every one for himself. We must give account how we have spent our time, how we have improved our opportunities, what we have done and how we have done it. And therefore, First, We have little to do to judge others, for they are not accountable to us, nor are we accountable for them (Gal 2:6): Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person. Whatever they are, and whatever they do, they must give account to their own master, and not to us; if we can in any thing be helpers of their joy, it is well; but we have not dominion over their faith. And, Secondly, We have the more to do to judge ourselves. We have an account of our own to make up, and that is enough for us; let every man prove his own work (Gal 6:4), state his own accounts, search his own heart and life; let this take up his thoughts, and he that is strict in judging himself and abasing himself will not be apt to judge and despise his brother. let all these differences be referred to the arbitration of Christ at the great day.

(5.) Because the stress of Christianity is not to be laid upon these things, nor are they at all essential to religion, either on the one side or on the other. This is his reason (Rom 14:17, Rom 14:18), which is reducible to this branch of exhortation. Why should you spend your zeal either for or against those things which are so minute and inconsiderable in religion? Some make it a reason why, in case of offence likely to be taken, we should refrain the use of our Christian liberty; but it seems directed in general against that heat about those things which he observed on both sides. The kingdom of God is not meat, etc. Observe here,

[1.] The nature of true Christianity, what it is: it is here called, The kingdom of God; it is a religion intended to rule us, a kingdom: it stands in a true and hearty subjection to God's power and dominion. The gospel dispensation is in a special manner called the kingdom of God, in distinction from the legal dispensation, Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17. First, It is not meat and drink: it does not consist either in using or in abstaining from such and such meats and drinks. Christianity gives no rule in that case, either in one way or another. The Jewish religion consisted much in meats and drinks (Heb 9:10), abstaining from some meats religiously (Lev 11:2), eating other meats religiously, as in several of the sacrifices, part of which were to be eaten before the Lord: but all those appointments are now abolished and are no more, Col 2:21, Col 2:22. The matter is left at large. Every creature of God is good, Ti1 4:4. So, as to other things, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15; Co1 7:19), it is not being of this party and persuasion, of this or the other opinion in minor things, that will recommend us to God. It will not be asked at the great day, "Who ate flesh, and who ate herbs?" "Who kept holy days, and who did not?" Nor will it be asked, "Who was conformist and who was non-conformist?" But it will be asked, "Who feared God and worked righteousness, and who did not?" Nothing more destructive to true Christianity than placing it in modes, and forms, and circumstantials, which eat out the essentials. Secondly, It is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. These are some of the essentials of Christianity, things in which all the people of God are agreed, in the pursuit of which we must spend our zeal, and which we must mind with an excelling care. Righteousness, peace, and joy, are very comprehensive words; and each of them includes much, both of the foundation and the superstructure of religion. Might I limit the sense of them, it should be thus: - As to God, our great concern is righteousness - to appear before him justified by the merit of Christ's death, sanctified by the Spirit of his grace; for the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. As to our brethren, it is peace - to live in peace and love, and charity with them, following peace with all men: Christ came into the world to be the great peace-maker. As to ourselves, it is joy in the Holy Ghost - that spiritual joy which is wrought by the blessed Spirit in the hearts of believers, which respects God as their reconciled Father and heaven as their expected home. Next to our compliance with God, the life of religion consists in our complacency in him; to delight ourselves always in the Lord. Surely we serve a good Master, who makes peace and joy so essential to our religion. Then and then only we may expect peace and joy in the Holy Ghost when the foundation is laid in righteousness, Isa 32:17. Thirdly, It is in these things to serve Christ (Rom 14:18), to do all this out of respect to Christ himself as our Master, to his will as our rule and to his glory as our end. That which puts an acceptableness upon all our good duties is a regard to Christ in the doing of them. We are to serve his interests and designs in the world, which are in the first place to reconcile us one to another. What is Christianity but the serving of Christ? And we may well afford to serve him who for us and for our salvation took upon him the form of a servant.

[2.] The advantages of it. He that duly observeth these things, First, Is acceptable to God. God is well pleased with such a one, though he be not in every thing just of our length. He has the love and favour of God; his person, his performances, are accepted of God, and we need no more to make us happy. If God now accepts thy works, thou mayest eat thy bread with joy. Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they are those that abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Secondly, He is approved of men - of all wise and good men, and the opinion of others is not to be regarded. The persons and things which are acceptable to God should be approved of us. Should not we be pleased with that which God is pleased with? What is it to be sanctified, but to be of God's mind? Observe, The approbation of men is not to be slighted; for we must provide things honest in the sight of all men, and study those things that are lovely and of good report: but the acceptance of God is to be desired and aimed at in the first place, because, sooner or later, God will bring all the world to be of his mind.

3. Another rule here given is this, that in these doubtful things every one not only may, but must, walk according to the light that God hath given him. This is laid down Rom 14:5, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; that is, "Practise according to your own judgment in these things, and leave others to do so too. Do not censure the practice of others; let them enjoy their own opinion; if they be persuaded in their own mind that they ought to do so and so, do not condemn them, but, if your sober sentiments be otherwise, do not make their practice a rule to you, any more than you must prescribe yours as a rule to them. Take heed of acting contrary to the dictates of a doubting conscience. First be persuaded that what you do is lawful, before you venture to do it." In doubtful things, it is good keeping on the sure side of the hedge. If a weak Christian doubts whether it be lawful to eat flesh, while he remains under that doubt he had best forbear, till he be fully persuaded in his own mind. We must not pin our faith upon any one's sleeve, nor make the practice of others our rule; but follow the dictates of our own understanding. To this purport he argues, Rom 14:14 and Rom 14:23, which two verses explain this, and give us a rule not to act against the dictates,

(1.) Of a mistaken conscience, Rom 14:14. If a thing be indifferent, so that it is not in itself a sin not to do it, if we really think it a sin to do it it is to us a sin, though not to others, because we act against our consciences, though mistaken and misinformed. He specifies the case in hand, concerning the difference of meats. Observe,

[1.] His own clearness in this matter. "I know and am persuaded - I am fully persuaded, I am acquainted with my Christian liberty, and am satisfied in it, without any doubt or scruple, that there is nothing unclean of itself, that is, no kind of meat that lies under any ceremonial uncleanness, nor is forbidden to be eaten, if it be food proper for human bodies." Several kinds of meat were forbidden to the Jews, that in that, as in other things, they might be a peculiar and separate people, Lev 11:44; Deu 14:2, Deu 14:3. Sin had brought a curse upon the whole creation: Cursed is the ground for thy sake; the use of the creatures and dominion over them were forfeited, so that to man they were all unclean (Tit 1:15), in token of which God in the ceremonial law prohibited the use of some, to show what he might have done concerning all; but now that Christ has removed the curse the matter is set at large again, and that prohibition is taken away. Therefore Paul says that he was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, not only as the author of that persuasion, but as the ground of it; it was built upon the efficacy of Christ's death, which removed the curse, took off the forfeiture, and restored our right to the creature in general, and consequently put a period to that particular distinguishing prohibition. So that now there is nothing unclean of itself, every creature of God is good; nothing common: so the margin, ouden koinon; nothing which is common to others to eat, from the use of which the professors of religion are restrained: nothing profane; in this sense the Jews used the word common. It is explained by the word akatharton, Act 10:14, nothing common or unclean. It was not only from the revelation made to Peter in this matter, but from the tenour and tendency of the whole gospel, and from the manifest design of Christ's death in general, that Paul learned to count nothing common or unclean. This was Paul's own clearness, and he practised accordingly.

[2.] But here is a caution he gives to those who had not that clearness in this matter which he had: To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, though it be his error, yet to him it is unclean. This particular case, thus determined, gives a general rule, That he who does a thing which he verily believes to be unlawful, however the thing be in itself, to him it is a sin. This arises from that unchangeable law of our creation, which is,

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Ch. Rom_14:1-9. Christian practice: mutual toleration: each individual directly responsible to the Redeemer

1. Him that is weak, &c.] Lit. But him that is weak, &c. The “but” marks a slight contrast with the previous passage. Probably this is q. d., “I have just spoken of vigour and thoroughness in your spiritual life; but let this be such as to leave you gentle and sympathetic with imperfectly-enlightened converts. Be severe with self, gentle with others.”

in the faith] So lit.; but render in his faith. See notes on Rom_12:3; Rom_12:6. Here, as there, a subjective explanation of the word “faith” is better, in view of the usage of this Epistle.

receive you] The Gr. tense is the present, and perhaps indicates (what is otherwise probable) that St Paul means not only the first welcome of a new believer, but the continued welcome—a full recognition ever after of his standing as a Christian. Same word and tense as Rom_15:7.

but not to doubtful disputations] Lit. not to criticisms of (his) scruples. The word “but” is not in the Gr., and changes the exact point of the clause, which is q. d., “receive him, do not criticize him; let him in with a welcome, not with a call to discussion.”—The noun rendered “criticisms” (or its cognate verb) is used (e.g. 1Co_12:10; Heb_5:14;) for detection of differences; and again (e.g. 1Co_11:31, E. V. “judge ourselves,”) for judicial enquiry and sentence, literal or figurative. “Criticism” thus fairly represents it in a context like this, where needless keenness in balancing varying convictions, and the consequent sentence of private or public opinion, is in view.—“His scruples”:—same word as Rom_1:21, (E. V. “imaginations,”) where see note. Here it is the reasoning of the mind with itself; doubt and perplexity.

Some general remarks are offered on the subject and the teaching of this chapter.

1. Two passages of St Paul’s writings afford striking likenesses or equally striking contrasts to Romans 14; viz. 1 Corinthians 8, and the Epistle to the Galatians as a whole. In all these three places St Paul has in view differences of opinion within the visible Church. In 1 Corinthians 8, as here, he argues for mutual toleration; in Galatians he lays down, with unbending decision, the line between irreconcilables.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_14:1-12

Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations.

Strong and weak

Here is a lesson--

I. For those who are strong in the faith.

1. Not to provoke.

2. Nor despise those who are weak.

II. For those who are weak. Not to judge their stronger brethren.

III. For both.

1. To think and let think.

2. To give each other credit for sincerity. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The weak in the faith to be received, or the duty of mutual forbearance

1. Faith is not here used in the sense of confidence in Christ, but of the faith. The question was, did Christianity or did it not require abstinence from certain meats, and observance of certain fasts and festivals? The man who maintained that it did is here held to be weak in the faith. He had but faintly grasped the breadth of Christs redeeming work; while he who had attained superior light, and had been set free from all such scruples, was therefore strong in the faith.

2. Now, the apostle assumes that the latter was right. Had he been wrong, there could have been no discussion, and there could be no just ground for a moments toleration of him. But he was not wrong (Rom_14:14). The Mosaic law on these subjects had been done away in Christ (Col_2:16-17).

3. The question was whether the man who conscientiously abstained and observed might, or might not, be received into the Church. He was certainly not required in order to salvation to disregard the Jewish festivals, nor to eat unclean meats. But it never could be tolerated that he should set up his scrupulous conscience as the normal standard of Christian faith (Gal_2:3-5; Gal_4:9-11; Gal_5:1-4). No one must bind burdens upon men which the Lord had not bound. Hence the weak in faith is to be received, but not to judgings or condemnations of opinions. If he is content to enjoy the advantages of fellowship with you, without insisting that you are all wrong, let him be received; but if his object is to promote contention, etc., then he has no rightful place amongst you.

I. Let not the strong in the faith despise them that are weak, for their convictions rest ultimately upon Divine revelation. The law of Moses was of Divine authority, and, although done away in Christ, was subject to it. Therefore it was not surprising if some of the Jewish converts still felt insuperable objections to its abandonment. It was a matter of conscience, and the man who respects his conscience deserves respect, even when prejudiced and wrong (Rom_14:6). The strong, therefore, must not put a stumbling-block in their brothers way. This may be done--

1. By a contempt of his scruples. The disposition to sneer at his stupid weakness will not convince him that he is either stupid or weak, but will rather drive him utterly away from those who tolerate such an ungenerous spirit, and perhaps to apostasy. Now, though the strong had a perfect right to disregard the distinctions of meats, he had no right to imperil the salvation of any one for whom Christ died (Rom_14:17). The weak are not required to abstain from meats, but you are not bound to eat them (1Co_8:13).

2. By example or persuasion. It was quite lawful for the strong to employ argument in order to convince the weak that he misapprehended the character and purpose of Christianity: but it was not lawful for him to laugh at his scruples, and to assure him, without adducing proof, that there could really be no harm in eating, etc. That might be quite true for him, but it would not be true for his weak brother. If this man presumed to eat the meat, or to disregard the day, while his scruples remained, his own conscience would accuse him of unfaithfulness. Thank God for thy liberty (Rom_14:22); but use it lawfully (Gal_5:13; 1Pe_2:16; 1Co_8:9).

II. The weak in the faith are not to judge or condemn the strong in the faith, the thing to which they are always predisposed. Incapable of grasping comprehensive principles, that, e.g., of Christian love, they feel to require a multitude of minute prescriptions. Days and meats and dress must all be fixed by enactment. And so being most punctiliously conscientious themselves, are ready to condemn brethren who are not equally scrupulous. Admit them into the Church by all means, says the apostle; but they must lay aside this censorious spirit. For it is not suffered them to usurp the place of the great Supreme. These matters are in themselves morally indifferent (Rom_14:14; 1Ti_4:4). Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act upon his own convictions. Your judgment is not binding upon any conscience but your own. As to all other matters there must be mutual forbearance and charity. Yet it is for each one to see--

1. That he is loyally and earnestly devoted to the service of his Lord. Whether strong or weak his object must be to approve himself unto the Lord in everything, and for the Lords sake to promote the comfort and perfection of all his brethren.

2. That conscience is not offended. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth in his own practice. Where there is doubt, respect that doubt. Seek that your conscience may be well informed. (W. Tyson.)

The treatment of the weak

Weak Christians have infirmities, but infirmity supposes life; and we must not despise them in heart, word, or carriage. We must rather deny ourselves than offend them. We must support them--bear them as pillars bear the house, as the shoulders the burden, as the wall the vine, as parents their children, as the oak the ivy; and this because--

1. They are brethren. Are they not of the same body? Shall the hand cut off the little finger because it is not as large as the thumb? Do men throw away their corn because it comes into the barn with chaff?

II. They are weak. Bear with them out of pity. In a family, if one of the little ones be sick, all the larger children are ready to attend it, which they need not do if it were well.

III. Christ does so. Bear ye one anothers burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ--the law of--

1. His command.

2. His example. He takes special care of the lambs, will not quench the smoking flax, and is touched with a feeling of our infirmities. (Philip Henry.)

The duty of forbearance in matters of opinion

Differences of opinion--

I. Must necessarily arise even among Christians, out of--

1. Human ignorance.

2. The different constitution of the mind.

II. In trivial matters indicate weakness of faith in those who are rigidly scrupulous. They do not understand the spirituality and liberty of the gospel.

III. Should be maintained in the spirit of love.

1. The strong may not despise the weak.

2. The weak and scrupulous may not judge the strong.

IV. Are of infinitely less importance than Christian brotherhood. He whom God has received must be--

1. Respected.

2. Treated as a brother beloved. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Religious toleration

The argument for this is founded on--

I. The nature and condition of man. He is imperfect, and therefore should also be tolerant. There is nothing more universal than ignorance, and hence there should be no virtue more universal than toleration. The facility with which we all absorb error and fall into prejudices, should make us always ready to tolerate many shades of religious opinion. It is folly to demand a unity of belief in a world where there is no one wise but God, and no one good except God. Some of the best men have been the victims of great errors. All intolerance is based upon egotism. It proceeds from the assumption that you have reached the ideal. The dreadful Popish persecutions all originated in a human egotism that cried, I have found it! They had become the exponents of God. Whereas now history shows that in all cases the persons exiled or put to death held a better creed at the time than those who forced upon them the bitter fate.

II. In the fact that the ideas over which most blood has been shed have subsequently been proven either useless or false. But one might have premised that the most intolerance would always be found gathered about the least valuable doctrine, because the most valuable doctrines are always so evident that no thumb-screw or faggot is ever needed to make the lips whisper assent. No man has ever been put to death for heresy regarding the Sermon on the Mount. But when a church comes along with its legitimacy, its Five Points, its Prayer Book, or its Infant Baptism, then comes the demand for the rack and the stake to make up in terrorism what is wanting in evidence. When witnesses were wanting, the high priests rent their clothes. If God has so fashioned the human mind that all its myriad forms can agree upon doctrines that are most vital; and if, as a fact, persecution has always attached itself to the small, then we would seem to have the curse of God visibly revealed against intolerance. (D. Swing.)

Toleration

A Quaker, after listening to Whitefields preaching, came up to him and said, Friend George, I am as thou art. I am for bringing all to the life and power of the everlasting God; and therefore if thou wilt not quarrel with me about my hat, I will not quarrel with thee about thy gown. (J. R. Andrews.)

Toleration: its value

Sailer, afterwards Bishop of Regensburg, could be identified with no party, and was hated by each. Napoleon prevented his promotion at one time by assuring the king he was a mere hanger-on to the Roman court; the Pope refused it at another because he suspected his attachment to the Church He was one of the mildest and most tolerant of men--mild to excess. It is told that having preached one morning near Salzburg, the parish clergyman rose up and said he would preach himself in the afternoon, as Sailer had made the doors of heaven too wide. You are excellent at bandages, said one of his friends, but a bad operator. Very possibly, he replied; in my life I have seen more wounds healed by a good bandage than by a knife. (Dr. Stephenson.)

Unity to be maintained in spite of differences of opinion

I. How it is imperilled.

1. By forcing our own opinions on others.

2. By overestimating our own practice.

II. How it may be promoted.

1. By forbearance (Rom_14:3).

2. By humility (Rom_14:4).

3. By aiming at personal conviction (Rom_14:5).

4. By keeping in view the glory of God (Rom_14:6).

III. Whereon it rests.

1. The common assurance that we serve one Lord.

2. That we are all redeemed by Him.

IV. What it requires.

1. That we avoid all unbrotherly conduct.

2. That we all submit to God.

3. That we remember our final account. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Religious disputations

This chapter is written to dissuade men from acting the part of religious critics. It cannot be said that men are indifferent to religion in other folks. It is only to religion in themselves that they are comparatively indifferent. Men are so accustomed to criticise each others church service, etc., that they lose the very spirit of religion. The apostle dissuades everybody from it. A little spring comes out from the side of a mountain, pure and cool. Two men are determined that that spring shall be kept perfectly pure and drinkable. One wants it to be done in one way, and the other in another way; and they are so zealous to keep the spring pure that they get to quarrelling about it, and tramp through it, and make it muddy. They defile it in their very zeal to keep it pure; and the water flows down turbid and unfit to drink. Now, men are so determined to glorify God that they act like the devil. They are so determined that charity shall prevail that they slay men. They are so determined that a kind spirit shall exist that they will not have a word to say to a man who does not believe in their catechism. They are so determined that the world shall be generous that they stir up all manner of corrupting appetites and passions. They condemn their fellow-men, saying, Well, they are not orthodox. They are not true believers. They do not belong to the true Church. There are no covenants for them. So, under one pretence and another, the great Christian brotherhood, through the ages past, has been turmoiled and distracted; and the world has seen the spectacle of anything but what God meant to establish in the world. The Church by which He meant to make known His manifold wisdom, has made manifest narrowness, sectarianism, selfishness, unjust partialities, and all manner of irritable jealousies. It has not made manifest the beauty of God, the sweetness of Christ Jesus, nor the love of the Spirit. It is a fact which I think can be stated without fear of contradiction, that the general aspect of religion, as presented by churches throughout Christendom, is not winning and attractive, and that the beauty of holiness, of which the Scriptures speak, has not yet blossomed out in the world. (H. W. Beecher.)

Practical godliness better rectifies the judgment than doubtful disputations

1. The weak one is--

(1) Not one that is weak and sick to death, erring in the foundation of faith--one who doth not hold the Head (Col_2:19), who denieth the Lord that bought him (2Pe_2:1; 2Jn_1:10).

(2) Nor one who is sick about questions (1Ti_1:4; 1Ti_5:13; 2Ti_2:13).

(3) But one who, though he hath embraced the Saviour, yet is not of a mature judgment, clear enough about the abolition of ceremonial observations, things [which] he judgeth ought to be forborne or done.

2. Charity is enjoined towards such. Take them to you, receive them into your houses (Rom_12:13; Luk_5:29). When they fly for their religion and lives, supply their wants, though not just of your opinion. Do not force them to practise what they cannot freely do, but receive them into your arms, love and converse, that you may instruct them and win them into your communion. Let not little differences cause the greatest distances (Rom_14:3).

3. The limitation of this exception. Not to doubtful disputations.

I. Disputations are not easily judged of by such as are weak in faith. This is evident from the first dispute that ever was in the world.

1. By this first dispute with the serpent, our first parents were foiled when in uprightness and strength of the image of God. But now sinful man is in a much more dark and doleful state. For--

(1) He cannot form an idea of anything as it is in itself (1Co_8:2; 2Co_3:5).

(2) His judgment, therefore, must needs be dubious or wrong whereby he is to compare things that differ or agree (Hos_9:7; Isa_5:20; Heb_5:14).

(3) His conclusions, therefore, must needs be distorted from these premisses; and the errors in the first and second concoction are not corrected and amended by the third. He who cannot make one straight step, can never take three together.

2. As we are lame in our feet by our naturals, so even those who by the light of the gospel and grace are brought over to better understanding, yet by virtue of the old craziness they are not thoroughly illuminated and refined. The very apostles themselves were plainly told by our Saviour of His sufferings and resurrection, yet they understood none of these things (Luk_18:33-34; Luk_24:45). Paul says, We know but in part (1Co_13:12). We see but one side of the globe. These weak Jews were zealous for their ceremonies; the Gentiles, as hot for theirs; let no man think himself infallible, for these were all mistaken.

3. Nothing so convulseth mens reason as interest.

II. The practice of holy duties is the ready way to have our minds enlightened in the knowledge of principles. These practical duties--

1. Give light (Joh_3:21). The very entrance into the command giveth light (Psa_119:130); the door is a window to him that hath a weak sight.

2. Advance light. Every step a man takes he goeth into a new horizon, and gets a further prospect into truth.

3. Keep from error or help out of it. Communion with the saints, e.g., as in a team if one horse lash out of the way, if the others hold their course, they will draw the former to the right path. If any man will do this will of God, he shall know of the doctrine (Psa_35:14).

III. Christian charity and reception will sooner win weak ones to the truth than rigid arguments.

1. Opposition breeds oppositions. When men dispute, they jostle for the way, and so one or both must needs leave the path of truth and peace. The saw of contention reciprocated, with its keen teeth eateth up both truth and love; for such contentions are rather for victory than truth.

2. Loving converse taketh off those prejudices which hinder mens minds from a true knowledge of others principles and practices.

3. Sincere love and converse breed a good opinion of persons who differ from us. They can taste humility, meekness, and kindness, better than the more speculative principles of religion. (T. Woodcock, A.M.)

Unwise disputations

Such facts remind us of an incident that occurred on the south-eastern coast. A noble ship with its crew and passengers was in awful peril, having struck on a sunken rock. Having been observed by those on shore, the lifeboat was ran down to the beach. Everything was in readiness when a most unseemly quarrel arose. There were two rival crews, each of which claimed the right to man the boat, and to receive any remuneration that might be earned by pulling out to the wreck. Neither crew would give way to the other, and so the boat was not launched, and while those men were wrangling with each other the ship and all on board her went under the raging billows. That was a sad scene. But in the eyes of Heaven it must be a still sadder spectacle to see the Church wasting her time and energies in disputing about points of doctrine and discipline, and yet leaving vast multitudes of men to perish in their sin and misery and despair. (Christian Journal.)

Christian forbearance

Let each receive every other in his individuality, and that not to doubtful disputations. We are not to attempt to shape men to that which we think they ought to be in a hard and systematic manner. In churches we see exhibited certain styles of character. The lines have been laid down with accuracy. The members are to believe such and such things, and they are to observe such and such bounds and theological lines, or else they are like a plant that is in a pot that is too small for its roots, and they are dwarfs all the rest of their lives. There are a few Christians (I would to God there were more) in whom the kingdom of God is like an oak or cedar of Lebanon; but there are many who are called Christians in whom the kingdom of God is no bigger than a thimble. There are men who have a few catechetical ideas, who are orthodox, and who make no mistakes in theology; but woe be to the man who does not make any mistakes. Count the sands of the sea, if you can, without misreckoning. A man that has a hundred ducats or dollars may count them and make no mistake; but multiply them by millions, and then can he count them without any mistake? I am sorry for a man who does not make mistakes. If you have a huge bucket, and a pint of water in it, you will never make the mistake of spilling the water; but if a man is carrying a huge bucket full of water he will be certain to spill it. (H. W. Beecher.)

Disputations to be avoided

John Wesley, a man whose bitterest enemy could not fairly accuse him of indifference to the doctrines and faith once delivered to the saints, wrote thus liberally and large-heartedly to a correspondent: Men may die without any opinions, and yet be carried into Abrahams bosom; but if we be without love, what will knowledge avail? I will not quarrel with you about opinions. Only see that your heart be right toward God, and that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, and love your neighbours, and walk as your Master walked, and I ask no more. I am sick of opinions. Give me a good and substantial religion, a humble, gentle love of God and man.

Christian contention

God grant that we may contend with other churches, as the vine with the olive, which of us shall bear the best fruit; but not, as the brier with the thistle, which of us will be most unprofitable! (Lord Bacon.)

Contagious contention

As a little spark many times setteth a whole house on fire; even so a contentious and froward person, of a little matter of nought, maketh much debate and division among lovers and friends. As we see one coal kindle another, and wood to be apt matter to make a fire; so those that are disposed to contention and brawling are apt to kindle strife. (Cawdray.)

Test of controversy

A cobbler at Leyden, who used to attend the public disputations held at the academy, was once asked if he understood Latin. No, replied the mechanic; but I know who is wrong in the argument. How? replied his friend. Why, by seeing who is angry first.

Christian liberty:--In such points as may be held diversely by diverse persons, I would not take any mans liberty from him; and I humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me. (Abp. Bramhall.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:1. Him that is weak in the faith — Whose conscience is scrupulous, or whose mind is doubtful, unsatisfied in, or not well acquainted with the principles of Christianity; particularly that concerning Christian liberty and freedom from the ceremonial law. “The apostle means the Jewish Christian, who, through weakness of understanding, or through prejudice, was ignorant of the doctrine of the gospel concerning meats and days; or whose persuasion of that doctrine was so weak, that it did not influence his conduct. To such persons, though in error, the apostle showed great tenderness, when he represented them as only weak in faith.” Receive ye — With all love and courtesy, into Christian fellowship: but not to doubtful disputations — About questionable points. “The force of the apostle’s admirable reasoning, in favour of candour and mutual condescension, cannot be enervated by saying, as some have done, that here was no separation between Jewish and Gentile Christians. For had the things judged indifferent by the latter, and apprehended sinful by the former, been imposed, a separation of communion must have ensued, and the schism, on the apostle’s principles, would have been chargeable on the imposers.” — Doddridge.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1-6. According to the great body of commentators, these rejecters of meats, sabbaths, and wine were Jews; but the difficulty is that Judaism taught no such rejection. To avoid this objection Alford supposes that they were very scrupulous Jews, who, like Daniel and his companions, ate vegetables alone to avoid the defilement arising from Gentile cookery. Similar was the case of Tobit, (Tob_1:10-11,) and of certain Jewish priests sent prisoners to Rome, mentioned by Josephus, (Life, § 3.) But there seems this peculiarity in all these quoted cases, that the persons were under duress; whereas the weaklings of this chapter were regular residents at Rome, able to prepare their food in their own way. Moreover, no shadow of such a compulsory reason for this vegetarianism appears. The eating of herbs, the abstaining from wine, and the judging of days, were all three alike, it would seem, a matter of explicit doctrine.

Others identify them with the Essenes, (note on Mat_3:7,) but these were residents not of cities, but of the deserts and rural sections. So was Banos, the ascetic teacher with whom Josephus for a while was disciple.

Our own opinion is that they were Gentile, as most of the Roman Church was. Their doctrine was a streak of Orientalism in Rome, where all opinions found a home. Those mystic Aryans, the Brahmans, had at this time infused something of their tenets from India into the West. The fundamental maxim was, (even as early as Simon Magus,) the absolute evil of matter. (Note on Act_8:9.) Thence they abstained from every bodily luxury; they denied at Corinth the resurrection of the body; blending with Judaism, they forbade meats in Colosse; and they denied the reality of the body of Jesus in Asia Minor, where they were opposed by St. John. This heresy was yet in the germ at Rome, and hence was mildly treated by Paul.

It is, indeed, objected that those mystics were not the gentle weaklings here described, but proud pretenders to eminent perfection in their abstinences.

But, 1, It is not so clear (as our notes on Rom_14:3 may show) that these weak in faith were very gentle in their judgments; and, 2, The phrase in 1Ti_4:3, commanding to abstain from meats, shows a tendency to hold this abstinence to be a requisite of true Christian piety. As to their doctrines about days, see our notes on 5, 6.

1. Weak in the faith—They were in the genuine faith of Jesus Christ, and truly thereby justified. But they were weak, from the fact that they were not perfectly grounded in the true limits of Christian morality, weak in the fact of a morbid conscience, and weak from the danger of taking ready offence at sounder Christians than themselves, and falling into an easy apostasy. There is sometimes as much danger from a morbid conscience as from a lax conscience.

Receive—To your Christian recognition and communion; as Christ also received us. (Rom_15:7.)

Doubtful disputations—Greek, criticisms of opinions. Receive the weak brother to something better than a censorship of his peculiar views. Of these weaknesses the apostle now adduces two kinds, one in regard to diet, and the other to sabbatic observances.

1. It is often the case that the supposed weak conscience is a pitiful self-conceit that fixes a false importance on trifles, and magnifies its own importance by imposing its notions as a law upon others. To obey its dictates is simply to gratify this self-conceit and to increase this dictatorial disposition. Such cases need to be managed with great wisdom and good temper. 2. It is not seldom the case that such whims threaten to make themselves a part of the Christianity of the locality and time, so as to deform and debase it, and, by rendering it repulsive to people of good sense really do an immense moral damage. So the Jesuits are said to carry this compliance so far, even among heathens, that they allow much of paganism to remain with a thin varnish of Christianity spread over the surface.

St Paul’s own example well illustrates his principles. He consented to circumcise Timothy because he thereby did not acknowledge circumcision to be a condition of salvation, but did secure Timothy access to those who so acknowledged it. He refused to circumcise Titus in order that the circumcisionists should not be too fully encouraged, and in order that circumcision might not be attached even as a non-essential but permanent appendage to Christianity. He would sooner die than consent to an act of circumcision as a condition or means of salvation. And so at a later period (1Ti_4:3) he commands Timothy to reject the heretics who required to abstain from meats, as if the time of temporizing on that point was past.

So long, indeed, as the weak brother is simple and sincere, and a delicate compliance may win his attention and tend to secure a stronger faith, it is of momentous importance to bear with him. Yet an eye must ever be had to extricating him from his weak scruples, and emancipating into the full, pure, comprehensive morality of the heart through Jesus Christ. This is the true rational Christianity.

5. Treatment of Weaklings in Faith, Rom_14:1 to Rom_15:14.

The vegetarian and over-sabbatarian, Rom_14:1-6. We all live under one final Judge, the Lord Jesus, Rom_14:7-13. Avoidance of fatal offence to morbid consciences, Rom_14:14-23; continued, Rom_15:1-7.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_14:1. Him that is weak in the faith.—Defective in the faith, in the general doctrine, and thus an observer of externals. Alford and De Wette refer to the weak in faith as one who wants broad and independent principles, and is in consequent bondage to prejudices. διαλογισμοί, opinions, views, thoughts. Often much disputing among the Rabbins on receiving proselytes on account of some supposed disqualification. The subject of the former chapter was submission; the subject of this is toleration.

Rom_14:2.—The weak thought that he would be more tolerated by abstaining, not only from swine’s flesh, but all flesh (Theoph.).

Rom_14:3.—Applies to both parties; evident from their being enlightened with the knowledge of God (Calvin, Stuart).

Rom_14:4. For God is able to make him stand.—Here we have both power and will, and the passage indicates God’s merciful disposition.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_14:1-4

The weak and the strong.—St. Paul’s knowledge of human nature comes out from time to time in his writings. The preacher should be a man conversant with both men and things. He should have eyes behind and before, and be able to search into the hidden mysteries of human nature. Thus St. Paul is an example to the preacher. By graphic strokes of the pen Paul touches the weakness of the strong as well as the weakness of the weak. Both require words of direction; none must be neglected by the faithful minister. St. Paul looks all round, and strives to produce a well-ordered Christian community.

I. The weak and the strong have their faults.—Sometimes the strong are found weaker than the weak; their very strength is an occasion of stumbling. Strength may beget an overweening self-confidence, which leads to destruction; weakness may induce carefulness, which tends to safety. The creaking gate hangs long. The weak ones linger; the strong are cut down suddenly when sickness attacks. The strong may err on the side of liberty, the weak on the side of restraint. The strong may have a contemptuous spirit and mien; he may become impatient of the weak, and treat him with disdain. The weak may have a censorious spirit, and charge the strong with being guilty of gluttony and drunkenness. The weak said of the strong Christ, “Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” The strong may be too tolerant except of weakness, while the weak may be intolerant. Our danger in these days is that of the ambition of being men of strength, which means men of broad views—men with no crotchets, which means too often men of no principles. Men with crotchets are strong; the strongest part of the plank is that where the knot is found.

II. The weak and the strong are levelled.—They are levelled, or ought to be, by the consciousness of common weaknesses. Strong men are but men at the best. A Samson may be bound captive and led blind to the scene of merriment; a Solomon may be overthrown by lust; a Peter may be frightened by a maid’s thoughtless speech. How short the distance between the strong and the weak! There is but a step between us and death. That step taken, and the strong man falls. A little vessel bursts, and the strong intellect loses its power; a wrong word is spoken, and the voice of the orator is not allowed to charm; a false step is taken, and the warrior is banished; the brother of high degree is overtaken in a fault, and is brought low. How wholesome the exhortation, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye”! In your strength consider your weakness, and let your hearts and your arms be always open to welcome and to receive the weak. Strong and weak are levelled when brought within the sweep of Omnipotence. Can there be any appreciable difference between the weak who lifts a few ounces and the strong who lifts many pounds to Him who weighs the mountains in scales and holds the immense waters in the hollow of His hands? If the strong God receive the weak children of men, those who dwell in houses made of clay, shall not weak men, who call themselves strong, and who are strong by comparison, receive the children of weakness? If the strong God receive us to divine consolations, to sublime communion, shall we not receive our brethren in the same spirit, and lay aside all doubtful disputations, all harsh thoughts, all deprecating views? How strong was He who came travelling in His greatness of His strength, mighty to save! By common consent of Christians and of unbelievers Jesus Christ has been assigned the foremost place amongst the strong ones of earth’s stalwart sons. And yet with tender tones of welcome, with gentle caresses of love, He received the weak. He took the children in His arms; He was the friend of publicans and sinners. We are ambitious to be Christ’s for strength; let us be ambitious to be Christ’s for gentleness to the weak and erring. Let us not break, but seek to mend, the bruised reeds of our maimed humanity; let us not quench, but seek to fan into a spiritual flame, the smoking flax of the expiring heaven fires in human nature.

III. The weak and the strong are mutually needful.—A place for every man, and every man in his place. A law both for the world and the Church; but selfishness prevents its right working. A place for every man! And yet how many men out of places! Selfishness says, The weakest must go to the wall; Christian benevolence says, The weakest must be received and nurtured into greater strength by the strongest. Christian benevolence has wiser methods than cynical selfishness. The weak as well as the strong are needful; the weak gather strength by contact with the strong, and the strong get more strength by helping the weak. We are all needful to one another. Let, then, the strong receive the weak; and let the weak gladly accept the help of the strong.

IV. The weak and the strong are servants of the divine Master.—God has had patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, amongst His servants. Giant-like men have done His bidding; eagle-eyed heroes have watched His purposes; stalwart men with strong and swift pinions have done His bidding. Wisdom and eloquence have been at the divine command; but weak ones have been of service. She who could only show her love by tears, and she who could only tell the wealth of her devotion by giving two mites, stood high in the estimation of the divine Master. The strong may be ready to smile at the weakness of the brother who is almost afraid to eat lest he should offend God. But surely there is a fine spirit in that over-sensitive nature, and God appreciates the exquisite tenderness. In this tolerant age, when the Church sets the lead in fashion, in creed rejects but in practice accepts the lust of the flesh, or the lust of the eye, and mostly the pride of life, we require the weak to teach us the need of a little more sensitiveness of conscience, of a greater tenderness of moral nature.

V. The weak and the strong must be alike holden up by immortal strength.—God is able to make the weak stand. His ability has been proved from time to time in the records of the human race. Weak women have been made to stand, and have shamed mighty men by their exhibition of unwonted courage. Those who have been so fastidious in non-essentials as to provoke the contempt of the strong by divine power have been made to stand gloriously in the day of battle. The strongest likewise must be made to stand by God’s imparted strength. The encircling strength of God embraces and empowers the weak and the strong. In ourselves we are all weak; in God’s grace, by the Spirit’s might, we are infinitely strong.

Rom_14:1. The strong helping the weak.—The words very remarkable, considering that they fell from the lips of a Jew. By birth, education, and interest he was as exclusive as could be. He would naturally have the national fault of “self-exalting opinion”—the false notion that God’s highest blessings were only for Jews. He had to conquer his Jewish prejudices, and fight his way through that narrow spirit of isolation that encircled him. The story of Paul’s life and his teachings shows how thoroughly he did this. We have suggested here:—

I. The remarkable effect of Christianity on men.—It almost amounts to miracle. Examples in history numerous. Note the contrasts between pagans and Christians in the matter of the strong dealing with the weak. Paganism, e.g., said that modesty in a woman was a presumption of ugliness. It is one of the strong points of Christianity. Slavery never put down except where Christianity was in force. Before Christianity makes itself felt anywhere there is an awful waste of human life—e.g., in Dahomey three thousand victims when the mother of the king of Ashantee died! Christianity always insisted that human life was sacred. Each soul for whom Christ died could say, My life is precious in the sight of God. Such a fact has led to modern charities; and all due to the work of the great burden-bearer, Christ Jesus. And Christians are to imitate Him.

II. The text indicates that Christianity is catholic.—Broad in its sympathies and influence. Christianity is not national and exclusive, not the heritage of English-speaking people. Christianity cares nothing about nationality, but for the salvation of all men everywhere. This is unwelcome news to some. They want to be within the select circle. Paul is ruthless in dealing with such narrowness. You who are strong, he seems to say, go and help your weaker brethren; show them your light; tell them it is for them also, because for them also Christ died.

III. The text suggests the neighbourliness of Christianity.—This neighbourliness exactly fits in with our natural feelings. May we not look upon a recluse as a freak of nature? Men, take them in the mass, cannot separate themselves from the outward world without a pang. The old monks “mortified” themselves by going into the gloomy monastery. Loneliness is a source of misery to the average individual. Possibly in the earliest days men tried isolation, but could not stand it. Therefore they formed themselves into communities; built villages, towns, cities, that they might come into touch with each other. Where Christianity exerts its influence men will not be satisfied with mere community. The theories that hold people together have practical expression. They must help one another—the strong help the weak.

IV. Imitation of Christ leaves no alternative but to be helpful.—To be hard-hearted is to be unlike Christ; and he who is unlike Christ cannot be Christ’s disciple. Christ was emphatically a burden-bearer. Where He saw men strong and stalwart He passed on. “They that be whole,” He said, “need not,” etc. To help one who is capable of helping himself is a waste of energy, and likely to encourage idleness; but to help the needy is to exercise the soul in a noble calling. “We ought to bear the weak, and carry them along with us as we go.” There is a kind of unconscious Christianity—namely, the little helps as we pass on life’s way.

V. The world is poorer than it might have been for want of the spirit of helpfulness.—Some of us who are strong have much to answer for—to answer for the pang of dismay in the weak one when a cheery word would have been so helpful. It would almost be a blessing if we had a bit of smart suffering to remind us of the value of a little help. Then we should be less critical, more considerate, less self-absorbed, especially any of us who are spiritually strong.

VI. Helpfulness is a duty.—“We that are strong ought,” etc. Think of the multitude of calls for such help: the sick, the poor, the ignorant, etc. We need of course to be discriminating in our helpfulness. There is a poverty, e.g., the result of vice, a laziness that leads to rags and tatters. But what of deserving poverty? There you dare not be indifferent We can all be Christians in the world. Do not pass any by, for Christ never did that to any poor soul. He bare our sorrows. If you would be Christlike, so must you be a sorrow-bearer. Do you say, Yes; but the cost! Think, then, of the cost to Jesus. “He came in flesh, in poverty, in homelessness, in tears, with shudderings of nameless agony, that He might drink up our sorrow in the vastness of His own, and that He might open springs of everlasting consolation to all the children of trouble.” Should any one find that Christians forget their duty, let him go to Christ. You have but to take your trouble to Him, and He, so strong in sympathy, will give you help. It is He who says, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour,” etc.—Albert Lee.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_14:1-4

Christian casuistry.—There is a kind of minuter casuistry which it is extremely difficult to handle from the mere want of something very distinct or tangible to hold by, and about which there is the greatest degree of indecision, and that just from the loss at which we feel to get any decisive principle of unquestioned evidence and authority to bear upon it. And so it is that even the Christian mind fluetuates thereanent, and exhibits itself upon this subject in a state both of vacillation and variety. For while one class of the professors is heard to declaim and to dogmatise and most strenuously to asseverate with all the readiness of minds that are thoroughly made up on the matters alluded to, there is another class of them who cannot assume this certainty without cause being shown, who must have something more to allege for the vindication of their peculiarities than the mere conventional shibboleth of a party, and who wait till a clear reason approve itself to their judgments ere they can utter with their mouths a clear and confident deliverance. Some may have already guessed what the questions are to which we are now adverting. They relate to the degree of our conformity with the world, and to the share which it were lawful to take in its companies and amusements. You must be aware on this topic of a certain unsettledness of opinion; while we know of none that wakens a more anxious degree of interest and speculation among those who are honestly aspiring after the right, and are most fearfully sensitive of the wrong in all their conversation. And if to tenderness of conscience they add a certain force of intelligence, they will not be satisfied with a mere oracular response from those who seem to be somewhat, and who speak as if from the vantage ground of their long initiation into higher mysteries. They are prepared for every surrender, and are in readiness to follow fully wherever the light of Scripture or of argument may carry them; but this light is the very thing they want and are in quest of. It is their demand for the rationale of this matter, with the difficulty they feel in reaching it, that has thrown them into a kind of harassment about the whole affair from which they long to be extricated. And neither in the magisterial but improved dictation of one set of Christians, nor in the yet unstable practice of another set of Christians, who are hovering about the margin that separates the Church from the world, and ever tremulously veering between the sides of accommodation and nonconformity therewith. From neither of these parties in the great professing public of our day can they find repose to their spirits, because from neither they have found effectual relief to the painful ambiguity under which they are labouring. What has now drawn our attention more especially to this subject is its strong identity in regard to principle with that question of Sabbath observation which we have recently attempted to elucidate. The elements of Christian liberty and expediency and charity appear to be similarly involved in both, so as that we may avail ourselves of the same guidance as before from the manner in which the apostle hath cleared and discriminated his way through the controversy that arose in his time about meats and days and ceremonies. It is, indeed, a very possible thing that Christianity may be made to wear another aspect than that in which she smiles so benignantly upon us from the New Testament—that, instead of a religion of freedom, because her only control is that of heavenly and high-born principle wherewith she rules, and by moral ascendency alone, over her willing and delighted votaries, she may be transformed into a narrow system of bigotry, whose oppressive mandates of “touch not and taste not and handle not” bear no relation whatever to the spiritual department of our nature—only galling and subordinating the outer man, while they leave the inner man as remote, both in principle and affection, from the likeness of God or the character of godliness as before. Better surely to impregnate the man’s heart, first with the taste and spirit of our religion, and then, if this should supersede the taste and affection he before had for the frivolities of life, it impresses a far nobler character of freeness and greatness on the change of habit that has taken place, when thus made to emanate from a change of heart, than when it appears in the light of a reluctant compliance with a rigid exaction of intolerance, the rationality and rightness of which are at the same time not very distinctly apprehended. Let the reformation in question, if reformation it be, come forth upon the habit of the man in this way—as the final upshot of a process by which the heart has been reformed, as the fruit of an internal change that has taken place on the taste and on the affections, through the power of the truth that is in Jesus, and whereby all old things have passed away and all things have become new. Better thus than by a mandate on the subject issued from the chair of authority. But it is now time to have done with this long excursion among the details and the difficulties of a casuistry by which the Christian mind has oft been exercised. For let it never be forgotten that a heart with rightly set affections and desires is, after all, the best of casuists. If the heart in its various regards be as it ought, this is our securest guarantee that the history in its various manifestations will be as it ought. The best way of restoring to light and to liberty the conscience of man is to enthrone love in his bosom.—Dr. Chalmers.

The effects of Christianity.—Raphael Aben-Ezra, an Alexandrian cynic, was won over to Christianity by the example of a Christian Roman centurion and his children. “I have watched you,” he said, “for many a day, and not in vain. When I saw you, an experienced officer, encumber your flight with wounded men, I was only surprised. But since I have seen you and your daughter, and, strangest of all, your gay Alcibiades of a son, starving yourselves to feed these poor ruffians, performing for them day and night the offices of menial slaves, comforting them as no man ever comforted me, blaming no one but yourselves, caring for every one but yourselves, sacrificing nothing but yourselves, and all this without hope of fame or reward, or dream of appeasing the wrath of any god or goddess, but simply because you thought it right,—when I saw that, sir, and more which I have seen; and when, reading in this book here, I found most unexpectedly those very grand moral rules which you were practising, seeming to spring unconsciously, as natural results, from the great thoughts, true or false, which had preceded them; then, sir, I began to suspect that the creed which could produce such deeds as I have watched within the last few days might have on its side, not merely a slight preponderance of probabilities, but what we Jews used once to call, when we believed in it—or in anything—the mighty power of God.”—Kingsley’s “Hypatia.”

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 14

Rom_14:1-4. Weak faith encouraged.—How many “stretch lame hands of faith, and grope and gather dust and chaff”! To be weak is to be miserable; and how often it means to be despised! The revivalist says, “Hope will not do; we must be certain of our salvation. I am as sure of heaven as if I were there.” But St. Paul says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” The revivalist rejects weak faith. Christ will neither break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax. The former He repairs until it sings sweetly of mercy; the latter He fans until it becomes a shining flame. A weak Christian is better than a boasting Pharisee.

“I falter where I firmly trod,

And falling with my weight of cares

Upon the great world’s altar stairs

That slope through darkness up to God,

I stretch lame hands of faith, and grope,

And gather dust and chaff, and call

To what I feel is Lord of all,

And faintly trust the larger hope.”

Tennyson.

Rom_14:4-5. No one to be despised.—An Englishman, a native of Yorkshire, going to reside at Kingston, in Jamaica, was reduced from a state of affluence to very great distress; so much so, that in the time of sickness he was destitute of home, money, medicine, food, and friends. Just in this time of need an old Christian negro offered his assistance, which being gladly accepted, this “neighbour to him” bought medicine, and administered it himself, furnished nourishment, sat up three nights, and, in short, acted the part of doctor, nurse, and host. Through the blessing of God the old negro’s efforts were rendered successful in the recovery of the sick man, who then inquired what expenses he had been at, and promised remuneration as soon as possible. The generous old Christian replied, “Massa, you owe me nothing; me owe you much still.” “How do you make that out?” said the restored man. “Why, massa, me never able to pay you, because you taught me to read de word of God!” This reply so affected the man that he resolved from that time to seek the Lord.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Fifth Section.—The true practice of the living worship of God in the management and adjustment of differences between the scrupulous and weak (the captives under the law), and the strong (those inclined to laxity and freedom). The Christian universalism of social life (to take no offence, to give no offence)

Rom_14:1 to Rom_15:4

A. Reciprocal regard, forbearance, and recognition, between the weak and the strong; of taking offence and judging. Rom_14:1-13.

B. Of giving offence and despising. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1

C. Reciprocal edification by self-denial, after the example of Christ. Rom_15:2-4

A. Rom_14:1-13

1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations2[judgments of thoughts].1 For one believeth that he may eat all things:another, [but he] who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth [or, the eater] despise him that eateth not [or, the abstainer]; and let not him which eateth not [or, the abstainer]2 judge him that eateth [or, the eater]: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up [made to stand]: for God [the Lord]3 is able4 to make him stand. 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fullypersuaded in his own mind. He that [who] regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and 6he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it [omit this clause].5 He that [And6 he who] eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks [thanks unto God]; and he that [who] eateth not, to 7the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks [thanks unto God]. For noneof us liveth to himself, and no man [none] dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die7 unto the Lord:whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived [Christ died and lived again],8 that he mightbe Lord both of the dead and [the] living. 10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all standbefore the judgment-seat of Christ [God].9 11For it is written,10 As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess [givepraise] to God. 12So then every one of us shall give11 account of himself toGod. 13Let us not therefore judge one another any more:

B. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1

13But judge this rather, that no man [not to] put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall [of falling] in his [a] brother’s way. 14I know, and am persuaded by [in] the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing [that nothing is] unclean of itself:12 but to him that esteemeth any thing to be [accounteth any thing]15unclean, to him it is unclean. But [For]13 if thy brother be grieved with thy meat [if because of thy meat thy brother is grieved], now walkest thou not charitably [thou art no longer walking according to love]. Destroy not him16with thy meat, [Destroy not by thy meat him] for whom Christ died. Let notthen your14 good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink [eating and drinking]; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that [who] in these things [herein]15 serveth Christ is acceptable19[well-pleasing] to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow16 after the things which make for peace [the things of peace], and things wherewith one may edify another [the things which pertain to mutual edification].20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure [clean];21but it is evil for that [the] man who eateth with [through] offence. It is good neither [not] to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do] any thing whereby [wherein] thy brother stumbleth, or is offended,17 or is made [omit made] weak. 22Hast thou faith?18 have it to thyself before God. Happy [Blessed] is he that condemneth [who judgeth] not himself in that thing [omit thing] which he 23alloweth. And [But] he that [who] doubteth is damned [condemned] if he eat, because he eateth [it is] not of faith: for [and] whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Rom_15:1 We then [Now we who] that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

C. Rom_15:2-4

2Let19 every one of us20 please his neighbour for his good [with a view] to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written,21 The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written22 for our learning [instruction], that we through [the]23 patience and [the] comfort of the Scriptures might have [our] hope.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

General Preliminary Remarks.—After the Apostle has described the duties of Christians, especially of the Christians at Rome, in their various general, fundamental relations: (1) As duties toward the Church; (2) In all personal relations; (3) Toward the State; and, (4) Toward the world, he proceeds to lay down the universal deportment of the Roman Church, by establishing the proper reciprocal conduct between, the strong (δυνατοί) and the weak (ἀδύνατοι, Rom_15:1; ἀσθενοῦντες, Rom_14:1).

In the first place, it is manifest that such a difference existed. This is especially evident from Rom_15:7-9. Second, it is likewise evident that the one tendency springing from Judaism was a legally punctilious tendency; while the other, being connected with heathen culture and freedom, was more liberal. This is supported in a very general way by the connection of this opposition with the, forms of opposition which the Apostle treats in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, &c. There is the following characteristic of the antithesis as it appears here: Some are weak in regard to faith, the freedom of faith, while others are strong in this respect (Rom_14:21-22). Some lay stress on their (under conditions which are not stated) eating no meat, drinking no wine (Rom_14:21), and keeping certain holy-days. The others know that they are free in this respect, and, proud of their freedom, and regardless of the consequence, seem inclined to use it at the expense of fellowship and unanimity. It is therefore the contrast of the punctilious and the large-hearted and liberal consciences (that is, decisions of conscience). Hence it is also characteristic of the former class, that they are inclined to judge, to take offence; and of the others, that they are inclined to despise, and thus to give offence. This contrast is so definite, that we deem it best to divide the section accordingly. Further, it follows from this that the more liberal party—we might even say the Pauline—was decidedly in the ascendancy (particularly according to chaps. Rom_14:1 and Rom_15:1), since it was necessary to make the repeated admonition, not to break off fellowship with the others. Though the Jewish-Christian element in the Church was a numerous one, it does not follow that the element of punctilious believers was equally so.

Finally, it is absolutely necessary to distinguish the standpoint of these punctilious believers as well from the very marked (alike in degree, but in fact divided) standpoints of the Galatian and Colossian fase teachers, as from the not less marked but yet already schismatic standpoint of the Petrine party of Corinth. The Apostle designates the Galatian false teachers, in Rom_2:4, as false brethren; he conditionally excludes them from communion, in so far as they persist in their doctrinally false gospel, and would make circumcision (which is at the same time the requirement of the legal standpoint) a necessary condition of Christian salvation. By these Ebionites there can only be meant Pharisaic, purely Jewish, people.[24] The Colossian false teachers are, in degree, not less false brethren, because they likewise adulterate the ground of salvation by dogmatic confidence; but their characteristic plainly leads to the supposition of Essenic Ebionites, for their worship of angels and their asceticism indicate an infusion of heathen elements into Judaism.25 There were also such false brethren elsewhere (2Co_11:26); and the false apostles in 2Co_11:13 were, undoubtedly, actually connected with the Galatian false teachers. The Petrine party itself, however, which does not seem, in the first place, to have extended beyond ethical, liturgical, and ascetic peculiarities and inclinations to separation, must be distinguished from these agitators, who furthered the doctrinal adulteration of the law.

Yet the case stood still better with the weak brethren in Rome. The Apostle treats them so gently, that we can evidently not take them for decidedly Ebionitic Christians, nor according to the degree and manner of the Galatian and Colossian false teachers, nor according to the initiates of Ebionitism in the Corinthian church. He forbids them only from pronouncing sentence, from their own conscientious standpoint, upon their more liberal brethren; whereas, he even takes their right of conscience against the more liberal brethren under his protection; and there is nothing said of an anathema, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, nor of a warning, as in the Epistle to the Colossians, nor of a censure, as in the Epistles to the Corinthians, to say nothing of the severe criticisms in the Pastoral Epistles. If the Apostle could have expressed such different opinions on the same Ebionitic phantom of Dr. Baur, his character itself would be to us a phantom; that is, all theology would itself have to be gradually transformed into a phantom.

By regarding the mild26 judgment expressed by the Apostle on the weak brethren in the Church at Rome, we are therefore aided in finding out the character of their standpoint. Various suppositions:

1. They were Jewish Christians, who wished to retain the law, and also the legal holy-days, sabbaths, new-moon feasts (the early commentators, Chrysostom, Ambrose, &c., Calvin, and others). Origen’s rejoinder: “Meat and wine were not forbidden in the law.” Tholuck observes, that Paul speaks in quite a different tone against such Judaists. The laying down of this category becomes justifiable, if we distinguish between doctrinal and ethical legality in reference to the laws on food and purification. For the reason given above, the question here cannot be concerning a doctrinal statute.

2. Jewish-Christian ascetics. For examples of them, see Tholuck, p. 699. But pure Judaism is a stranger to all strictly doctrinal forms of asceticism, and is acquainted only with an ethical form: (1) That of the Nazarites for the whole life; (2) That of the Nazaritic vow for a limited time; (3) The theocratic general and special ordinance of fasts; (4) The personal fasting of individuals in special states of life. But there can be nothing said here of all this, and just as little of the doctrinal asceticism of Christians of Essenic prejudices,27 on whom the Apostle has expressed himself in Colossians 2. Thus the view of Baur, and others, falls to the ground. On the abundant confusion arising from the supposition that heathen motives are connected with the motives of the weak brethren here, see Tholuck’s quotations on the Neo-Platonists, the Pythagoreans, and the Gnostic Ebionites, pp. 699 ff. These do not belong here with the cited examples of Jewish Nazarites, because the latter never thought of compelling others to adopt their manner of life.

3. Ethical and social motives, arising from fear of mingling with the heathen sacrificial customs. Tholuck says: “According to Augustine, reference is here made to the same persons as in 1 Corinthians 7., the reference here being to those who, because they, in buying food at the market, could not sufficiently distinguish the meat offered to idols, preferred to abstain altogether from eating meat. This explanation is implied by Cocceius, and has recently been defended by Michaelis, Philippi, and especially by Neander, and certainly has by far the strongest grounds in its favor.” The weak brethren, therefore, were not influenced by doctrinal but by ethical motives: (1) Fear of eating meat offered to idols; (2) Of drinking the wine of the heathen drink-offerings (Deu_32:38; (3) In addition to this was their necessity of still retaining as a pious custom the Jewish holy-days, for it is well known that the Sabbath, which was observed together with Sunday, gradually died out in the Church as a day of rest.28 As examples of the abstinence named, Tholuck cites Daniel (Rom_1:8; Rom_1:12; Rom_1:16), Esther (Rom_4:16), Tobias (Rom_1:12), and the Maccabees. (2Ma_5:27). The gradations (cited by Tholuck) of this scrupulousness on the part of the punctilious Jews, do not here come into consideration, as the weak brethren, according to Philippi’s observation, did not withdraw from eating with the Gentiles (?) and the Gentile Christians. Likewise, the decree in Acts xv. is justifiably cited in favor of the view presented. Tholuck, with Philippi, is right in not admitting that, because of an adherence to special holidays, there were two parties among the weak brethren.

4. Various views. According to Erasmus, and others, both the tradition of laws respecting food and the fear of eating meat offered to idols, were motives. According to Chrysostom, and others, they would refrain from all meat, to escape blame, in consequence of the Jewish disdain of swine-meat. According to Eichhorn, these people were generally Gentile-Christian ascetics, who entertained philosophic and ascetic principles, especially the Neo-Pythagorean. Meyer supposes the “influence of Essenic principles,” yet so that they are not led into conflict with justification by faith; however, he opposes Baur’s view, that the people were Ebionitic Christians, because abstinence from wine by the Ebionites has been nowhere certified. He asserts, against view (3), that the Apostle did not speak, as in 1Co_8:10, of the sacrificial character of meat and wine—as if this had been necessary in the presence of the well-known variance in the Church at Rome! After all, the object of the scrupulousness here was not the principal thing, but the laying down of the canon by which “the weak and the strong” in a church specially called to universality have to preserve their unanimity—the one class, by not taking offence in a Pharisaic, censorious spirit, and the other, by not giving offence in a reckless arrogance of freedom.

A. Rom_14:1-13 : Reciprocal regard, forbearance, and recognition between the weak and the strong. Especially of the taking offence and judging on the part of the weak. Meyer, on Rom_14:1-12 : “Fraternal behavior toward the weak asked for (Rom_14:1). The first point of difference between the two classes, and the encouragement because of it (Rom_14:5). The proper point of view for both in their differences (Rom_14:6), and its establishment (Rom_14:7-9); censure and impermissibility of the opposite course of conduct (Rom_14:10-12).”

Rom_14:1. Him that is weak in the faith [τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει]. The δέ connects with the foregoing; Rom_13:14. After the Apostle has expressed the recognition of physical necessities, and the necessity of limiting the provision for them, he finds himself induced, first of all, to admonish those more freely disposed in this respect to be forbearing toward the weak (Meyer, Philippi). This applies to the formal connection;[29] but, according to the real connection, he must come, at any rate, to this difference between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity (De Wette), although only the first elements of it were present in the Roman Church.

Weak in the faith. The feeble in respect to faith, the standpoint of faith and its consequences. Since each party reciprocally held the other as the weaker in faith, we might think that in this sense the general exhortation applies to both parts in the sense of: him who appears to you as weak in the faith. But Paul does not deny his standpoint; he immediately afterward calls one who is scrupulous respecting food: ὁ ἀσθενῶν. And this is important; it proves that the Apostle does not design to deprive the strong of the liberty, which he himself takes, of frankly expressing his judgment on the differences. The strong should therefore stand to their conviction; but they should not make any such application of it as would be against brotherly love and fellowship. According to Tholuck, his reason for addressing the strong first (yet not “altogether,” though “chiefly”) was, not that the Gentile Christians constituted the great majority of the Church, but, on the principle stated by Chrysostom, that the weaker part stands in continual need of most care. Yet the Christians of Pauline tendencies, who must not be identified strictly with Gentile Christians, constitute the body of the Church.

As the two parties were not at all separated, the προζλαμβάνεσθε cannot mean exactly receive; at least not in the sense of strict communion (Erasmus, Grotius, Luther, and others), nor receive him to yourselves (Olshausen [Hodge, Stuart], and other’s), according to Act_28:2. Between these there lies the idea of reception in the emphatic sense, to draw into an inward, friendly intercourse. [Alford: “ ‘Give him your hand,’ as Syr. (Tholuck): ‘count him one of you,’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him.”—R.] In such relations of difference, the relative danger of intolerance always lies on the stronger side; therefore the case was very different in Rome from what it was in Galatia. Yet the Apostle does not fail to point out the intolerance on the part of those who are punctilious.—Explanations of the πίστις:

1. The religious belief of the ecclesiastical doctrine (Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Beza; Luther: the Lutheran theologians in part).

2. Moral conviction in reference to what is permissible (Este, Bellarmine, Erasmus, some of the older Protestant theologians, Arminians, Socinians). [So Stuart, Hodge.]

3. Accommodating explanations: The practical application of faith (Chrysostom, and others); knowledge (Grotius, Semler).

Against (1) it must be said (apart from the fact that a difference still exists between the doctrine of faith, as such, and the vital energy of justifying faith), that the Apostle does not here emphasize the antithesis of truth and error, but that of confidence and doubt. Against (2) it may be said, that the reference cannot be, absolutely, to a merely subjective ideal fidelity to conviction without the objective basis of truth. It is clear from Rom_14:6, that the Apostle ascribes to both parties religious faith as well as fidelity to conviction; that the weaker brother holds, in a certain sense, most inflexibly to his conviction, follows from the fact that he is of the party that judges, while the other is of the party that despises. Rom_14:23 says, that he can even sin against his faith by eating in doubt; and the context says, as well, that the less careful brother can sin against his faith by an uncharitable abuse of his freedom. Thus both parties have and exercise faith, being true to their conviction of faith; but the weak in faith show their weakness by not venturing, in the traditional scrupulousness of their legal conscience, to draw the full conclusion from their justifying faith, in order to break through their religious prejudices and prepossessions.

The Apostle proves that he does not recognize this weakness as a permanent rule for their life, by the candidly expressed conviction of his standpoint, as well as by his doctrine, in Rom_14:14; but he does not wish that the free development of their consistency of faith should be affected by the strong giving them offence, either to make them more scrupulous, or to mislead to a frivolous transgression of their conscientious limits. As, therefore, faith in 1Co_12:9 is a vigorous faith in reference to performing miracles, so here, in reference to the practical development of life; in both cases there is the full consequence of world-conquering confidence—there, in overcoming the force of the disturbed states of body and soul, and here, in conquering the power of legal misconceptions and prejudices. Tholuck is correct in observing, that the two explanations (of religious faith and fidelity to conviction) do not conflict with each other. The religious Christian faith, according to its practical form in the developing stage of the dictate of conscience, comprises both elements; as even the early expositors, who explained πίστις by saving faith, have generally placed the certitudo conscientiœ along with it (see Tholuck, p. 705); while, on the other hand, it is made emphatic in many ways, that reference here is to the moral conviction of those who believe in Christ on the ground of this faith (Meyer). [Philippi, Tholuck, Meyer, and most German commentators, together with Alford, and others, have carefully guarded against the purely subjective meaning: moral conviction, adopted by Stuart and Hodge. At the same time, they very properly reject the purely objective sense of πίστις, Christian doctrine—a sense which the word rarely, if ever, has in the New Testament. Hence the correct rendering is not: weak in faith, or as to faith (Hodge), for thus the article is ignored, nor yet: weak in his faith, which is too subjective, but (as in E. V.): weak in the faith. Alford: “Holding the faith imperfectly—i.e., not being able to receive the faith in its strength, so as to be above such prejudices.”—R.]

But not to judgments of thoughts [μή εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν. Dr. Lange: Doch nicht zur Aburtheilung von Bewisgründen. See below.—R.] Διάκρισις means, in 1Co_12:10 and Heb_5:14, to pronounce judgment, sentence. Αιαλογισμοί generally denotes thoughts, but, regarded as moral (or often immoral) motives, imaginations (Rom_1:21; 1Co_3:20), or even doubts (Php_2:14; 1Ti_2:8). Accordingly, the connection leads to the explanation: Not to the judicial decision of motives. Do not keep frequent company with them for the object, or even to such an issue of the matter, that the mutual motives or differences shall be concluded by premature decision, that a fault-finding of the different tendencies can arise from it. It is evident that the expression cannot mean: “Not for criticizing scrupulous niceties,” as an exhortation to the strong (Tholuck).30 For the Apostle himself has criticized the scrupulous niceties of the weak sufficiently plainly, by characterizing them as weak, and not yielding their point theoretically. Philippi is right when he observes that, throughout the present chapter, the Apostle ascribes the κρινεις to the weak, but the ἐξουθενεῖν to the strong. Yet he arrives at the explanation: Receive them affectionately, so that no mental doubts arise in them. But this is something quite different from Luther’s expression: Do not perplex their consciences. Mental doubts must needs arise in them, and even be awakened, if one would aid them to a more liberal standpoint. But, in their theoretical treatment, they must not be forced beyond the measure of their weakness, but such a premature decision should not also arise on their side. Paul could well exact of the strong, that they should not eat meat for the sake of the weak, &c.; but not, that they should hypocritically deny their more liberal view in mental intercourse with them, or allow it to be overcome and judged. This submission of many a more discerning one to the harsh judgment of the narrow-minded has ever been a source of serious injury. But the measure of possibility should be, to treat the differences as nonessential peculiarities, on the common ground of being the measure of a truly hearty, but also very careful, intercourse (comp. Rom_16:17-18). This premature decision of what the development of spiritual life can harmonize only in time, is therefore forbidden to both parties. The strong are, however, chiefly recommended to deport themselves according to their difficult task, just because the others are chiefly inclined to judge. This view becomes still stronger, if εἰς be taken in the sense of result.

If we distinguish candidly the two views: 1. Receive them, but not so that a reciprocal mental judgment is the result of it; 2. Receive them, but not to pronounce judgment on their scruples (Grotius, and others), we must urge against (2), that the stress lies on the modality, on the manner in which the strong should be accustomed to cultivate intercourse with the weak.31 Therefore Reiche is right in referring the prohibition to both parties, and Chrysostom was not incorrect in attributing criticizing to the weak. That διάκρισις may also mean doubt (Theophylact), does not come further into consideration. Erasmus, Beza, Er. Schmid, have accepted the classical meaning of “doubt” for διαλογισμοί, and “conflict” for διάκρισις. [So E. V.] Therefore disputations. But these have ever been unavoidable, and even Paul has not avoided them.

Rom_14:2. For one believeth, &c. [ὅς μὲν πιστεύει, κ.τ.λ.] The explanation: He is convinced that he can eat every thing (πιστεύει ἐξεῖναι; Tholuck, Reiche, and others), makes faith a subjective opinion. But it rather means: He has a confidence of faith, according to which he can eat every thing (ὥστε φαγεῖν πάντα; Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi).

But he who is weak [ό δὲ ἀσθενῶν. The E. V. assumes a strict antithesis here, but the τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα (Rom_14:1). is resumed; hence it is not necessary to find any other special reason for the anacoluthon, though another may be allowable.—R.] The Apostle does not continue with ὃς δὲ, because he will first take the weak into special consideration.—Eateth herbs. Λάχανα. The expression is pressed by Meyer, but something symbolical or hyperbolical will nevertheless have to be allowed to his explanation; for example, the joint designation of bread, of vegetable food in general.32 And it would follow from his view, that this eating of vegetables is an essential characteristic of the weak one, which can be urged with as little literalness as that the strong one is addicted to the eating of all kinds of food. His characteristic is the eating of meat, free from all ordinances. Therefore Fritzsche, Philippi, and others, would not regard the expression as an unconditional preclusion from all enjoyment of meat, as Meyer does. Philippi: “Some would only absolutely refrain from eating meat in order the more easily to overcome temptation in special cases, and others only in those special cases, particularly in the social meals, where their conduct was marked in the church as surprising; and, finally, others would only do so at the social meals, where they were certain that the meat placed before them was meat offered to idols, or, at any rate, were uncertain whether or not it was meat offered to idols. But all these could be very well designated as λαχανοφάγοι.”

Rom_14:3. Let not him who eateth despise, &c. The ἐξουθενεῖν is the specifically improper conduct of him who, occupying a more liberal point of view, in his own wisdom pleases himself (Tholuck: “The conceit of illuminism, which was found even among the Gentile Christians, as 1 Corinthians 8.”).—Judge. On the other hand, the κρινειν is the specifically improper conduct of the legal believer, and it is not correct to suppose that (according to Tholuck) the ἐξουθενεῖν belongs as a species under this κρίνειν. That the Apostle, in the present section, has, first of all, to do with the one judging, the one taking offence, is plain, as well from the construction of the foregoing verse as from the succeeding fourth verse. It is also clear from the additional:

For God hath received him [ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο]. He has been received into the communion of God and Christ, and thou wilt excommunicate him? This should always be perceived by believers relying on the letter, in relation to Christians who are established upon the real ground of faith. [Stuart and Hodge (following Calvin) apply this clause to both classes, but this is forbidden both by the context and by the fact that the strong are not disposed to reject but to despise the weak; while the weak are ever for excommunicating the strong, withdrawing from fellowship, &c. Hence the pertinence of the clause to this class. So Meyer, De Wette, Philippi, Alford, and most.—R.] The mark of this reception is rather the peace and light of fellowship with God, than reception into the Church. Yet this also comprises the fact, that God has received him into His service as a servant (Vatabl.), but only indirectly.

Rom_14:4. Who art thou? &c. [σὺ τίς εἶ, κ.τ.λ. Comp. Rom_9:20.] Tholuck is here quite beyond the connection (in consequence of the supposition that ἐξουθενεῖν is only a species of κρινειν), when he questions whether the weak one here judging is addressed. The σύ is claimed to belong to both parts (also according to Reiche and Chrysostom) [Stuart, Hodge]; while Meyer and Philippi, on the contrary, properly find in it an address to the weak one judging.

Another man’s servant [ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην. Paul uses οἰκέτης only here, and it occurs in the New Testament but rarely (Luk_16:13; Act_10:7; 1Pe_2:18). It means a house-servant, who is more closely connected with the family than the other slaves (Meyer).—R.] We must not pass lightly over the ἀλλότριον. It means not merely another, but a strange one. Meyer, and others: “He who is not in thy service, but in the service of another. But the one who judges is also in the service of this other one. That which causes him to judge, is not chiefly the notion that he is the master of this servant, but that the servant conducts himself in his service as an ἀλλότριος, who has in him much that is in itself surprising. The weak one fails to find in him the manner of the οἰκεῖος.

To his own master [τῷ ἰδίω̣ κυρίω̣]. The κύριος is still chiefly figurative, the master of the strange servant. In order to understand the thought to its fullest extent, we must first consider the figure. It is the figure of a master who takes many kinds of servants in his service. Now, if he has one from a foreign country who makes himself a surprising exception, the matter belongs to the master alone, who has become “his own master”—that is, the exclusive master.

Standeth or falleth [στήκει ἢ πίπτει]. The standing and falling, as an expression of God’s judgment (Psa_1:5; Luk_21:36, &c.), has therefore also the further figurative meaning of standing or not standing in the household judgment. But this figure is from the beginning a clear designation of the relation in which Jewish and Gentile Christians stand to Christ. Christ is the Master; see. Rom_14:8-9; comp. 1Co_6:20; 1Pe_2:9. The dative may be regarded as dativ. comm., even if the master himself is the judge, because it is his loss or gain if the servant falls or stands. Explanations:

1. The standing or falling is judicially understood as God’s judgment (Calvin, Grotius, and many others).

2. The continuance or non-continuance in true. Christian life is meant (Vatabl., Semler, De Wette, Maier, Meyer).

The opposition of these two views has no well-justified meaning, since, in a religious sense, God’s judgment is executed through the life.33 Meyer, indeed, says, in favor of (2): “To make stand in the judgment (to absolve), is not the work of Divine power, but of grace.” But besides the fact that power and grace do not He so far asunder, there comes into consideration the further fact, that the question here is not concerning a making to stand chiefly in God’s judgment, but in the uninvited judgment of men (Ebionitism, hierarchism, &c.).

He shall be made to stand [σταθήσεταδέ]. Here the Apostle completely withdraws the figurative veil from the thought. The strong man will remain standing in his freedom of faith.34

For the Lord is able to make him stand [δυνατεῖ γὰρ ὁ κύριος στῆσαι αὐτόν. See Textual Notes3 and4.—R.] Christ supports the believer. If the reading κύριος were regarded as an exegetical correction, we would have to consider, in the reading Θεός, the universal historical, spiritual, and external protection which God has bestowed upon the more liberal heathen Christianity, in opposition to the narrow Jewish Christianity, and to the pure religion of faith in opposition to legally weakened faith. Meyer: “He does not say it as one who gives security, but who hopes.” This is against Reiche, who says that Paul could not go security for the perseverance for the strong one in faith, with his liberal views, and hence the reference must be to the being supported in the judgment.[35] Grotius says, better: est bene ominantis. It must be observed, that the Apostle speaks of the future of the strong man in genere, but not of that of each individual, for he had early experienced that individual men, reputed to be strong, lapsed into antinomianism.

Rom_14:5. One man esteemeth one day above another [ὂς μὲν κρίνει ἡμέραν παρ ̓ ἡμέραν]. He distinguishes one day from another, and selects it as a holy-day. Κρίνειν = probare. The second point of difference. Selections for feast-days, and not for fast-days, are spoken of (Chrysostom, Augustine, Fritzsche). In harmony with the explanation of fast-days, ἡμέραν παῤ ἡμέραν has also been explained by alternis diebus (the Vulgate: judicat diem inter diem; Bengel: the appointment of days for distributing alms). [It has also been referred to the usage in regard to abstinence from meat, &c.—R.] Tholuck: “As from the commandments on food, so also from the Jewish holy-days (Col_2:16), particularly the Sabbath, the Jewish Christian could not wean himself, for we find the observance of the Sabbath even in the fifth century of the Church, also in Const. Ap. 25.” The same author correctly observes, that the holy-days, among the Jews, were not just the same as fast-days (see also Gal_4:10).[36]

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind [ἓκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίω̣ νοῒ πληροφορείσθω]. The Apostle does not decide in a dogmatical way, although he has sufficiently indicated his point of view. But he lays down a rule which infallibly leads to reconciliation. We cannot here translate νοῦς: in his disposition (De Wette), for every one of both these parties would be thus assured in disposition. Rather, every one should seek to change his conviction of feeling—as it is connected with faith in authority, party influence, &c.—into his inmost, spiritually effected conviction. We could therefore here translate νοῦς: in his understanding, his self-reflection, his practical reason, his mediated self-consciousness; the same thought is comprised in the expression: self-understanding, regarded as the conscious and reflecting spiritual life, by which the νοῦς constitutes an antithesis to the immediateness of the πνεῦμα (see 1Co_14:14-15). In this tendency the rationalist must become free from the dogma of deistical or pantheistical illuminism, and arrive at true rationality; in this tendency, the one who is bound to ordinances must learn to distinguish between the law of the Spirit and the law of the letter; in this tendency, both parties must become free from prejudice, fanaticism, and phraseology, so as to know how to be tolerant, and then to be in peace.37

Rom_14:6. He who regardeth the day [ὁ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν]. This verse is a guiding-star, according to which every one, in his spiritual life, should become certain in his conviction. The more one seeks to sanctify his opinion religiously, to bring it before the Lord, and to change it to thanksgiving, so much the more must he distinguish the true and the false in the light of God.

Regardeth it unto the Lord [κυρίω̣ φρονεῖ. The dative is dat. commodi.] The κύριος is Christ (Meyer, Philippi, and others); referred by many to God, against which is Rom_14:9; Meyer: unto the Lord’s service. Yet, at all events, a service in a wider sense is meant: for the honor of his Lord (see 1Co_10:31).—[And he that regardeth not, &c. See Textual Note5.—R.]

Proof: For he giveth thanks unto God [εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ Θεῷ]. The thanksgiving at the table (Mat_15:36; Mat_26:26, &c.) is a proof that, with pious feeling and a good conscience, he consecrates his food and his enjoyment to God as a thank-offering. [Alford: “Adduced as a practice of both parties, this shows the universality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals.”—R.]—And he who eateth not. He who abstains from eating meat. Even he is thankful for his scanty meal.

Rom_14:7. For none of us liveth to himself [οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἑαυτῷ ζῇ]. The Apostle designates the universal basis of the thought, that the Christian eats or does not eat to the Lord. This rests upon the fact that we exist here, that we live and die, to the Lord. Meyer says, correctly: The dative must be taken in the ethico-telic sense. This telic εἰς αὐτόν is, indeed, always connected with a δι ̓ αὐτοῦ and ἐξ αὐτοῦ; although the objective dependence on Christ (Rückert, Reiche) is not directly meant, and, in an absolute sense, all these terms apply, through Christ, to God.

Rom_14:8. We die unto the Lord [τῷ κυρίω̣ ἀποθνἠσκομεν. See Textual Note7.] Even the Christian’s dying is an act of consecration to the glory of Christ (Bengel: eadem ars moriendi, quœ vivendi.)

Whether we live, therefore, or die, &c. [ἐάν τε οὖν ζῶμεν ἐάν τε ἀποθνήσκωμεν, κ.τ.λ.] This proposition does not merely serve to establish the foregoing (we eat or do not eat), but to explain and elucidate it. The stronger form, the stronger antithesis of living and dying, underlies the eating and not eating. But both coincide in our being the Lord’s (belonging to Him). [Alford: “We are, under all circumstances, living or dying (and à fortiori eating or abstaining, observing days or not observing them), Christ’s: His property.”—Meyer: “In the thrice-repeated and emphatic τῷ κυρίω̣ (τοῦ κυριοῦ) notice the divina Christi majestas et potestas (Bengel), to which the Christian knows himself to be entirely devoted.”—R.]

Rom_14:9. For to this end Christ died and lived again [εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἒζησεν. See Textual Note8.] The telic definition of the death and resurrection of Christ serves, on the other hand, to establish our living and dying to the Lord. The ἒζησε here, as in Rev_2:8, designates Christ’s return to eternal life, hence the ἀνέστη is passed over. Olshausen would understand the ἒζησε to be the earthly life of Jesus (therefore taken as a Hysteron proteron.) Thereby a uniformity would, at all events, be constituted by the statement: we live or we die, but a dissimilarity would be called forth in relation to what follows. Meyer properly brings out also the fact that the κυριότης of the Lord is established on His death and resurrection. But it is in harmony with the telic definition of Christ’s dominion that the antithesis in this life—the living and the dead—recedes behind the antithesis in the future life, the dead (in the act of dying and in Sheol) and the living, by whom it is conditionally established.

Both of the dead and the living. According to Meyer’s suggestion, the purpose is not to refer the effects of Christ’s death and return to life (as sundered) to the dead and to the living respectively (see his note on p. 497).

Rom_14:10. But why dost thou judge. The σύ is here opposed to the dominion of Christ over the dead and the living, as above, to another man’s servant; but the latter is now denoted brother.

Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? The Apostle, having spoken of the weaker one, now speaks these words to the stronger, in order to maintain his harmonizing position. Here, as well as in the supporting of him who stands, Rom_14:4, and in the thanksgiving in Rom_14:6, the Apostle goes back to the highest causality (see Textual Note9).

For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God [πάντες γάρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ]. We must appear before the judgment-seat of Cod himself, which Christ shall administer as Lord (Rom_2:16; Act_17:31; comp. Mat_25:33; Act_26:6). The judging of one’s brother, therefore, first, encroaches upon Christ’s office as ruler, and, second, anticipates the judgment-bar of God.

Rom_14:11. For it is written. Isa_45:23. On the free form of the citation from memory, and from the LXX., see Philippi, p. 571. [See also Textual Note10.—R.] On ἐξομολογεῖσθαι, with the dative, meaning to praise (Rom_15:9; Mat_11:25, &c.), see Tholuck, p. 719; Meyer, p. 498. [Meyer says the verb with the dative always means: to praise; with the accusative of the object: to confess (Mat_3:6, &c.).—R.] That special kind of praise, however, is meant, which occurs after a finished act of Divine Providence according to a Divine decision (see Php_2:11). Tholuck says: “Isa_45:23 does not speak of the appearance of Christians before the judgment-seat of God, but of mankind’s universal and humble confession of dependence upon God.” But this unwarrantably removes the element of future time, the eschatological element, which is, at all events, also comprised in the passage in Isaiah. Meyer says, somewhat better: “In Isaiah God makes the assurance by an oath, that all men (even the heathen) shall reverently swear allegiance to Him, Paul here regards this Divine declaration which promises messianic victory, because it promises the universal victory of the theocracy, according to the special and final fulfilment that it shall have in the general judgment.”38—That even the prophetic passage; itself comprises, with Christ’s saving advent, also the eschatological references, follows from the definite prospect that every knee shall bow before Jehovah, &c. (see Php_2:10-11).

Rom_14:12. So then every one, &c. [See Textual Note11.] Meyer puts the emphasis on ἕκαστος, Philippi on τῷ Θεῷ, others on περὶ ἑαυτοῦ. The first is preferable.—R.] In this lies the ground of the following exhortation (Rom_14:13): Let us not therefore judge one another any more [μηκέτι οὖν ἀλλήλους κρίνωμεν]. The Apostle here comprises both parts, and thereby makes his transition to the following admonition to the strong.

B. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1. On giving offence and despising. “Exhortation to the strong” in particular.

Rom_14:13. But judge this rather [ἀλλὰτοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον]. The κρίνατε. The Apostle uses the same word in a changed meaning, in order to emphasize more particularly, by this antanaclasis, the antithesist o judging. The consideration of the future judgment should move believers in particular to so conduct themselves as to give offence to no one (Mat_18:6 ff.). Meyer: “Let that be your judgment.”

Not to put a stumbling-block or an occasion of falling in a brother’s way [τὸ μὴ τιθέναι πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ σκάνδαλον]. It does not follow that, because the expressions πρόσκομμα and σκάνδαλον are, in general, used metaphorically as synonyms, we would here have to accept a “verbosity in the interest of the case” (Meyer). In Rom_14:21 we find even three special designations: προσκόπτει ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ. There also, however, Meyer, with others, regards the threefold designation as only the expression of the urgency of the matter. But in a real reference, the twofold effect of the giving offence comes into consideration. The giving offence is either an occasion for the punctilious brother to become embittered and still more hardened in his prejudice, or to conduct himself frivolously, without an understanding of the principle of freedom, and thus, according to the present passage, eat meat with inward scruples of conscience.39 The Apostle indicates the first case in Rom_14:15, and the second in Rom_14:23. The use of different expressions, in themselves synonymous, to denote this antithesis, was quite natural, and, in Rom_14:21, the Apostle seems to distinguish even three cases: to take an offence forward, or backward, or to be strengthened in weakness. Even to this very day, the offence which the Jews take at Christianity is divided into the two fractions of extreme legality and of wild liberalism. The τιθέναι causes us to return to the original sense of the words (see the Lexicons).

Rom_14:14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus [οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐνκυρὶω̣ Ἰησοῦ]. He knows it already as an Old Testament monotheist, who knows that God is the Creator of all things (1Ti_4:3-4; Gen_1:31). But he also has the fixed assurance of it in the fellowship of Christ, by virtue of justifying faith in His Spirit. Calovius: libertate a Christo parta. [Alford: “These words give to the persuasion the weight not merely of Paul’s own λογίζομαι, but of apostolic authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity as connected with Christ Jesus, as having the mind of Christ.” So Hodge, substantially, but with less exactness, since he retains the incorrect by of the E. V. It is doubtful whether ἐν ever has this force. Jowett, however, calls these words: “the form in which St. Paul expresses his living and doing all things in Christ, as, in language colder and more appropriate to our time, we might say as ‘a Christian.” ’ But this is a dilution of the force of the expression.—R.] A consciousness of Christ’s declaration in Mat_15:11 is here more probable than questionable; but then that declaration is not in a legal sense the basis of his freedom (comp. also 1Co_8:8; Col_2:14-16).

Unclean; κοινόν, profane, unclean in the religious legal sense (see the Commentary on Matthew, p. 277; the Commentary on Mark, p. 64). Levitically unclean was, indeed, even still a type of what was common or unclean in the real spiritual sense (Heb_10:29).

Of itself, δἰ αὑτοῦ, not according to Lachmann’s reading, δι ̓ αὐτοῦ. [See Textual Note12.] Of itself, according to its nature, in contrast with the economical order, the moral convenience, or the natural feeling or conscience of the one partaking. [Theodoret, reading αὐτοῦ, refers it to Christ.—R.] “The Apostle himself belongs to the strong (comp. ἡμεῖς in Rom_15:1, and 1Co_9:22);” Tholuck. But he also again distinguishes himself from the ordinarily strong one, in that he takes into the account, as a co-determining factor, conscience and regard to fraternal intercourse, or habitual practice.—[But to him, εἰ μὴ τῷ. This introduces an exception to unclean, not to unclean of itself. Hence not = ἀλλά but = nisi (Meyer).—R.]—To him it is unclean. With emphasis. [The uncleanness is accordingly subjective (Meyer).—R.]

Rom_14:15. For if [εἰ γάρ See Textual Note13.] The less authenticated reading εἰ δέ seems at the first glance to be most suitable; but the reading εἰ γάρ seems to compel us to accept, that even the strong one, who knows that a certain kind of food seems unclean to his weak brother, makes himself unclean by eating it to his offence.40

Because of thy meat thy brother is grieved [διὰ βρῶμα ὁ ἀδελφός σου λυπεῖται. Βρῶμα, that food which he holds to be unclean. Bengel calls this meiosis. Comp. Heb_9:10; Heb_12:16; Heb_13:9.—R.] The difficulty occasioned by the expression λυπεῖται, is due to a neglect to distinguish properly the two kinds of offence. First of all, the question here is concerning that offence which consisted in the weak one’s being made to stumble by the strong one’s eating of meat. Tholuck: “λυπεῖν, according to the New Testament use of language: to afflict;” therefore λυπεῖσθαι is taken by expositors (Origen) = σκανδαλίζεσθαι. But would he who took offence at the eating be thereby induced to imitate the example?—According to the Apostle, it was, at all events, the one who ate, notwithstanding the offence he had taken, but not the other, who was irritated and felt himself aggrieved as much by the supposed pride as by the inconsiderateness of the strong one. “But such an affliction,” says Philippi, “would be the beginning of the judging forbidden by the Apostle, which he therefore would not recommend to special regard.” What! a prejudiced man’s being afflicted itself the beginning of judging? Philippi, in harmony with Elsner, ignores the subjective justification of this affliction, by interpreting the λυπεῖν according to the signification frequently occurring in the classics: to prejudice, to injure. Meyer, on the other hand, urges against this the New Testament use of language, and understands the expression to mean moral mortification, an insult to the conscience, with reference to Eph_4:30.41 Grotius, and others, have referred the word to the affliction produced by the charge of narrowness. The charge of narrowness comprised in reckless “eating” does, indeed, come into consideration as a single clement, but it is not the principal thing.

Thou art no longer walking according to love [οὐκ ἒτι κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖς]. For the one giving offence injures love, and also makes himself unclean.

Destroy not by thy meat, &c. [μὴ τῷβρώματι, κ.τ.λ.] Comp. 1Co_8:10-11. But it does not follow from this analogy (of 1 Cor.), that the brother is, in all cases, led only, by a narrow and frivolous eating with others, to infidelity to his conscience, and that it is only by means of this that he incurs the danger of the ἀπώλεια, or actually relapses into a state leading to this. The exasperations of the one falling back upon ordinances lead to fanaticism and the ἀπώλεια, just as surely as laxities lead to antinomianism. Meyer says: “The occasion to fall from Christianity (Theophylact, Grotius, &c.) is not at all taken into consideration.[42] But can there be, in the case of Christians, a relapse into the ἀπώλεια without a real apostasy from Christianity? Bengel: Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam.43

Rom_14:16. Let not then your good be evil spoken of [μὴ βλασφημείσθω οὖν ὑμῶντὸ ἀγαθόν. See Textual Note14. De Wette thus explains the connection of οὖν with what precedes: “If this does not take place, then your good will not be evil spoken of.”—R.] What is the good which the Apostle speaks of, and in how far is it exposed to slander? Explanations:

1. τὸ ἀγαθόν is Christian freedom (“in relation to eating meat”), Origen, Thomasius, Grotius and others; Tholuck, with reference to 1Co_10:29-30. Then the reference to the eating of meat is evidently nothing more than an accidental consistency of Christian freedom in its general meaning.44 De Wette and Philippi, on the contrary, observe, that the matter in question here is the possession not of a single party, but of the whole Church. But Tholuck aptly replies: “This freedom was objectively purchased for the whole Church.” Therefore also the reading ἡμῶν does not pronounce against this explanation.

2. Theodoret, De Wette, Philippi: faith. [Luther, Melanchthon, Hodge, &c.: the gospel. In fact, this is the view of Philippi: doctrina evangelica.—R.]

3. The kingdom of God, in Rom_14:17. [So Ewald, Umbreit, Meyer. With proper restrictions, this view seems least objectionable. (2) and (3) imply that the evil-speaking is from without the Church.—R.]

Unquestionably Rom_14:17 is an explanation of Rom_14:16, but the kingdom of God is here described as a treasure and enjoyment of faith, and there it is the first element: righteousness through Christ = freedom from human ordinances; see Gal_5:1. The explanations harmonize, in maintaining that the question is concerning the Christian good, κατ̓ ἐξοχήν. And this good must be named objectively the gospel, and subjectively faith; or, if we comprise both these elements, the kingdom of God. It obscures the text to rend these things asunder by aut, aut. But it is unmistakable that the Apostle speaks relatively of this good, as it is represented in the freedom of faith enjoyed by renewed mankind. Now, as the punctilious Jewish Christians, and particularly the Jews, saw many Christians abusing their freedom, they were exposed to the danger, from this abuse of freedom, to abuse and finally to slander freedom itself, and even the gospel, according to a confusion of fanaticism similar to what occurs in our day, when men confound the Reformation with revolution, with the Münster fanaticism, with sectarianism, and apostasy from Christianity. Paul already had a sufficiently bitter experience in the impossibility of avoiding such slanders, even when the greatest care is observed; he all the more regarded it as an obligation of wisdom and love, to admonish those who were free to make a proper use of their freedom. We must not, however, consider the slander of Christian freedom in itself alone, apart from its principle, faith. Besides, this one slander of Christians against Christians had, as its result, another: that the Gentiles abused Christianity because of its division, and perhaps the proudest among them made it a subject of derision, that Christians contended about eating and drinking, as if these things were the real blessings of the kingdom of heaven. This latter feature is the explanation of Cocceius.

Rom_14:17. For the kingdom of God. [Γάρ. If the reference in Rom_14:16 be to freedom, then the connection is: Preserve your liberty from such evil-speaking, since nothing spiritual is involved. If, however, Meyer’s view be adopted, then a motive is presented here, with a reference to the tenor of the evil-speaking—i. e., the blasphemy would consist in such a wrong estimate of Christianity, or the kingdom of God in the minds of those without. The advantage of taking the wider view of Rom_14:16 becomes obvious here. For if it be restricted to the strong, then this verse must be so restricted also, when its most necessary application is to the weak brethren.—R.] The βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, typified by the Old Testament theocracy, is God’s dominion over the heart, instituted and administered by Christ; it is the heavenly sphere of life, in which God’s word and Spirit govern, and whose organ on earth is the Church. Here, too, Meyer mixes up the second advent: there is “also here nothing else than the messianic kingdom, which shall be set up at the second coming of Christ.”

Is not eating and drinking [βρῶσις καὶπόσις. Comp. Col_2:16. The act of eating and of drinking. The reference is obviously to the practice of both parties.—R.] Its nature does not consist in this. [Not as the Greek fathers interpret: it is not won by this.—R.] Meyer: “The moral condition of its (future!) nature does not depend upon it.”

But righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost [ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω̣]. De Wette has full ground for contending against the shallow interpretations of these words, by a series of commentators from Chrysostom down to Meyer (Grotius and Fritzsche among the number), to the effect that the question here is only one of moral virtues. With Meyer, the “rectitude” naturally stands at the head. De Wette interprets these ideas in the full sense. Therefore he connects the doctrinal view (Calvin, Calovius, and others) with the ethical. [So Hodge, in last edition. In the earlier, he adopted the “ethical” view. But as he now says: “Paul does not mean to say that Christianity consists in morality—that the man who is just, peaceful, and cheerful, is a true Christian. This would be to contradict the whole argument of this Epistle.”—R.] Accordingly, righteousness is, first of all, justification; peace is chiefly rest of spirit; and joy in the Holy Ghost is the joy of our spirit, which has its ground in the Holy Ghost.45 But inasmuch as the question here is not so much concerning the virtues of God’s kingdom as its blessings, the doctrinal view must be regarded as the principal thing. It might be said, as regards the concrete occasion [i. e., the circumstances of the Roman Church]: a. With righteousness in Christ there is joined freedom from legality; b. With peace and the spirit of peace there are joined brotherly moderation and forbearance in the use of freedom; c. And with joy in the Holy Ghost there is joined the impulse to cultivate social joy through the proper tone of mind. Tholuck, with good ground, has cited Rom_15:13 in favor of the religious construction of the three definitions; also 1Th_1:6; Php_3:1; 2Co_6:10. Grotius, and others, have interpreted the joy transitively, to establish joy; and this effect is, indeed, quite peculiar to the social impulse of Christian joy, which it has from heaven (“Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy”); but this element is not the principal and fundamental thought.

Rom_14:18. For he who herein serveth Christ. Ἐν τούτω̣, according to Meyer, means: according to this; that is, according to the relation already given. Tholuck more fitly says: herein. The perception of the opposition between the inward and real and the unreal and outward in God’s kingdom, and the cultivation of the former, is meant. So far ἐν τούτω̣ is much stronger than ἐν τούτοις. [The singular is so strongly supported, that we must adopt it; see Textual Note15. But it has been referred by many commentators (from Origen to Jowett) to the Holy Ghost. Dr. Hodge assumes that this is the necessary view. But as Alford remarks: “It would be unnatural that a subordinate member of the former sentence, belonging only to χαρά, should be at once raised to be the emphatic one in this, and the three graces, just emphatically mentioned, lost sight of.” This difficulty has led a number of commentators to retain the plural. But this is contrary to the received canons of criticism, and an unfair method of avoiding the difficulty.—R.]

Is well-pleasing to God, &c. [εὐάρεστος τῷ Θεῷ, κ.τ.λ.] He who, in the perception of this rule of the New Testament, serves Christ with pure motive, has the twofold blessing of being well-pleasing to God and approved of men. Among these men, the best among those who dissent are undoubtedly chiefly meant, for the really quarrelsome partisans are most embittered by the peaceful conduct of faith.46

Rom_14:19. Let us therefore follow after the things of peace [ἂρα οὖν τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης διώκωμεν. The inference is from Rom_14:17-18 (De Wette, Philippi, Meyer), not from the whole preceding context (Hodge). See Textual Note16 on the form of the verb.—R.] The διώκειν is here in contrast with the impulse of party excitements.

The things which pertain to mutual edification [καὶ τὰ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους]. Edification always comprises two elements, according to the figure which represents the Church as Christ’s temple: 1. Arrangement into the fellowship of Christ by the awakening, vivification, and preparation of the stones; 2. Arrangement into the fellowship of the Church by the promotion of what is essential, and by moderation in the exercise of grace according to the spirit of humility and self-denial; see 2Co_10:8; 2Co_13:10, and other passages. In this sense, each should build the other up.

Rom_14:20. Do not for the sake of meat undo the work of God [μὴ ἒνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε (pull down) τὸ ἒργον τοῦ Θεοῦ]. Instead of building up, the inconsiderate one tears down. The καταλύειν and λύειν are a specific expression of this fact. The work (building) of God has been understood as Christian faith, the σωτηρία, the extension of Christianity; Meyer, and others, have understood the Christian as such. [“His Christian personality.”] But the οἰκοδομή here evidently denotes the fellowship of faith. [This seems to combine the two favorite views, viz., that the fellow-Christian is here referred to—that the “kingdom of God” in its extension is meant. Alford, referring to 1Co_3:9, explains: “Thy fellow-Christian, as a plant of God’s planting, a building of God’s raising.”—R.]

But it is evil [ἀλλὰ κακόν. Instead of δέ we have ἀλλὰ here. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 403.—R.] To κακόν we must simply supply, from what precedes: Every thing which is clean in itself (Meyer). [Alford thinks nothing need be supplied, except, as in E. V., the neuter verb. “It is evil—i. e., there is criminality in the man.” On the other proposed supplements, see Meyer, Alford, in loco.—R.] Κακόν, injurious in this case, because it is not only a sin to him, but also leads him to ruinous frivolity; see Rom_14:15.

To the man who eateth through offence [τῷ ἀνθρώ πω̣ τῷ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι]. By the one who eats, there can only be meant the weak one (according to Chrysostom, Luther [Meyer], and others), and not the strong one, according to the explanation of most commentators (Calvin, Grotius, De Wette [Hodge, Alford], and others). But the address is directed to the strong. Do not destroy for the sake of meat—that is, by thy inconsiderate and free enjoyment—the work of God, for, by the πρόσκομμα which thou givest thy brother, thou leadest him to eat against his conscience. For it is said, first, concessively: all things indeed are pure; second, the one eating with (taken, not given) offence to his conscience, is, as an injured one, contrasted with the one who destroys, who has given him offence; we have, besides, in the third place, the whole context.

[Those who find in offence a reference to the offence given by the strong one, rather than to the offence taken by the weak one, also urge the context in favor of their view. The context, however, only proves that the strong are addressed here. They incorrectly infer from this, that the κακόν must be predicated of the action of the party addressed. But is it not like Paul to urge, as a motive, the evil effect upon the brother taking offence? Besides, as Meyer suggests, the other view has no special connection with the former part of the verse, but gives us only the vague remark, that it is wrong to eat so as to give offence to others. The objection, that offence cannot well be applied to offence against one’s own conscience, loses its force, when it is remembered that the strong are cautioned with reference to the effect of their conduct on the weak.—R.]

Rom_14:21. It is not good to eat flesh, &c. [καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα, κ.τ.λ.] Luther, and others, incorrectly take καλόν as comparative in relation to ἐν ᾧ [“It is better that thou eatest no flesh and drinkest no wine, or (than) that thereon thy brother,” &c.]. Probably to tone down the force of the expression, which seemed all too strong. But καλόν itself contains the necessary mitigation, since it denotes a higher and freer measure of self-denying love. [Dr. Lange renders it: edel, noble. The case is not hypothetical; the scrupulous demanded abstinence from wine also, we infer from the whole passage.—R.]

Not to do any thing wherein thy brother, &c. [μηδὲ ἐν ω̣ ὁ ἀδελφός σον. See Textual Note17.] Tholuck, and others, referring to 1Co_10:31, would supply ποιεῖν with ἐν ὧ, which is certainly more correct than to supply φαγεῖν ἢπιεῖν. [The E. V. seems to imply the latter view; it is emended, therefore.] As De Wette properly remarks: Paul does not here lay down, as a definite precept, this principle of self-denying love according to which he had lived (see 1Co_8:13).[47] On the three expressions προσκόπτει, &c., see the explanation of Rom_14:13. [It is not necessary to find (with Calvin) a climax ad infra in these three verbs, yet they are not precisely synonymous. The figure of Rom_14:13 is retained, but the third verb expresses the mildest form of offence. De Wette, Philippi (and E. V.) render: is made (or becomes) weak; Meyer, Alford, and others, more correctly: is weak. The full thought, then, is: It is noble not to do any thing wherein thy brother is weak; even to avoid his weak point.—R.]

Rom_14:22. Hast thou faith? [σύ πὶστιν ἒχεις; See Textual Note18. The briefer reading is adopted there.—R.] Meyer, with Calvin, Grotius, and others, take these words as interrogative; Tholuck, with Luther, Fritzsche, and others, as concessive, which corresponds better with the context.48 [If ἢν be rejected, the interrogative form is to be preferred, as better suiting the lively character of the address (so Philippi, Alford, De Wette, Hodge, &c.). The question implies, on the part of the strong brother, an assertion: I have faith. The concessive view: you have faith, I grant, may imply the same. In fact, whatever reading or construction be adopted, the purport of the verse remains unchanged.—R.] Tholuck: “The stronger will depend upon his faith, but he should not come forward with it.” That is, should not come forward with it in practical uncharitable conduct; but, on the other hand, he should not dissemble the conviction of his faith.

Have it to thyself [κατὰ σεαυτὸν ἒχε. Keep it, because well founded, but for the sake of thy brother, keep it to thyself.—R.] This comprises not only a restriction for the strong, but also a limitation of the principle previously established in Rom_14:21. Or, in his private life, where he gives no offence to his brother, he may also live according to his faith, yet according to the rule that he should regard himself as present to God.—Before God. [As God sees it, it need not be paraded before man (Meyer, Hodge).—R.] Tholuck explains the ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ by thanksgiving.

Blessed is he, &c. [μακάριος, κ.τ.λ.] Luther: Blessed is he whose conscience does not condemn him in that which he allows. So also Meyer; Philippi, with reference to Rom_14:5 : “Let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.” But we cannot expect here a simple declaration of the strong man’s blessedness in opposition to the weak; and all the less so, because, immediately afterward, there is mention made of the weak one’s sinful eating in doubt, which the strong man has occasioned by his offence.49 Thus the proposition directs attention to the difference between the theoretical conviction and an inconsiderate conduct according to it. “Blessed is he whose conscience must not practically disapprove of what he, according to his theoretical conviction, approves.” No one can have a perfect conviction of practical good conduct, if he make a false application of the theoretical conviction of faith against love; see 2Co_8:9-12; 1Co_9:19; 1Co_10:23. [This view of Dr. Lange, which seems to be peculiarly his own, implies a distinction so subtle, that it seems out of place in the practical part of the Epistle of this earnest Christian teacher. He adduces no arguments to support it, except the negative one, that the declaration of the strong man’s blessedness can scarcely be expected here, especially when the danger of the weak one from the example of the strong one follows immediately. But as, in Rom_14:20, Paul refers to the evil done to the weak, as a motive to the strong whom he is addressing, so here he may present the blessedness of a strong conviction, and then the danger of a weak one, as a double motive to be careful of the weak brother. As the whole argument tends toward chap Rom_15:1, this seems a satisfactory view.—R.]

Who judgeth not himself. The Apostle says κρίνων, and not κατακρίνων (as most commentators explain), because the Christian, with the unconscious and false application of a principle which is in itself righteous, and even holy, does not sin so ruinously as he who condemns himself by acting against his religious conviction.50 With the germinating principle of faith in the weak one, the law is no more of authority; but so long as it applies to him in connection with faith, he cannot do violence to it. It is not by presumptuousness, but by mature conviction, that we become free.—[Alloweth, δοκιμάζει. Agendum eligit (Estius).—R.]

Rom_14:23. But he that doubteth [ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος]. With the act of eating, he is at the same time stricken and condemned, κατακέκριται; comp. Joh_3:18. Meyer: “It was necessary to define more specifically the actual self-condemnation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius, and most commentators).” But there is a great difference between self-condemnation and actual self-condemnation. If the explanation, “to be subject to Divine condemnation,” does not say: to be already subject to the final judgment, then must it be explained to mean, that a Divine sentence on his condemnable (not condemned) condition has occurred in his act itself, which sentence he must himself best experience in his own conscience, because the fact of his doubting is better known to himself than to any one else.51

Because it is not of faith [ὅτι οὐκ ἐκπίστεως]. Namely, that he ate. [Alford explains of faith here: “from a persuasion of rectitude grounded on and consonant with his life of faith. That ‘faith in the Son of God’ by which the Apostle describes his own life in the flesh as being lived, informing and penetrating the motives and the conscience, will not include, will not sanction, an act done against the testimony of the conscience.” This is, perhaps, more in accordance with Dr. Lange’s view of πίστις (see below) than the ordinary interpretation, which confines it to mere persuasion, moral conviction (Hodge, De Wette, and most).—R.]

And whatsoever is not of faith is sin [πᾶν δὲ ὅ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν]. To be read as a concluding sentence, and not as an explanation of the foregoing: because every thing which is not of faith, &c. [The E. V. (for) is incorrect; and should be substituted, δέ introducing, as Alford suggests, an axiom.—R.]—Conflicting explanations:

1. Augustine, and many other commentators; Calovius, &c.: which is not of Christian saving faith. Then the consequence is the proposition: The whole life of unbelievers is sin, even the morality and virtues of the heathen, &c. (Formula Cone. Rom 700: where even the peccata sunt are moderated by the peccatis contaminata.)[52]

2. Moral faith, “the moral conviction of the rectitude of a mode of action” (De Wette, Reiche, and Meyer, after Chrysostom, and others). But undoubtedly Chrysostom’s explanation shows a better knowledge of the connection between the requirement of saving faith and subjective conviction than many modern explanations, with all their fidelity to conviction. Even Grotius does not speak of conviction, but of conscience: Peccatum est, quidquid sit, conscientia non adstipulante. There can be no perverted decision of conscience which conscience itself did not have to contradict, and consequently also no abstract and subjective certainty of conviction without an objective ground. But conscience itself harmonizes with God’s law, just as the law harmonizes with the gospel and its faith. Otherwise, the world would be irretrievably lost in egotistic separation. How would we ever get at the wayward, if the truth did not testify to their conscience?

We accordingly have to distinguish in explanation (2) between conscience and subjective conviction in the usual sense; see Rom_2:14-15. In explanation (1) we must distinguish: a. Between faith in a doctrinal system and saving faith itself; b. Between developed saving faith and its beginnings under gratia prœveniens, the doing of the truth in the life of the upright; Joh_3:21. It follows clearly enough from chap 2., that the Apostle does not here mean to characterize such a conduct as sin. Yet, on the other hand, he will not designate such conduct as sinless; for, until the conscious reconciliation or perfection of conscience, even the better man is in an inward darkness and vacillation concerning his ways, and selfish motives are mixed even with his better actions. But the Apostle also does not speak here solely of the opposition in the life of Christians. Christians must be conscious of their opinion as well as of their action, in the light of truth itself. Philippi has brought out prominently the connection between (1) and (2). But he returns to a modified Augustinian view, by deducing from the claim that the confidence of the acceptability to God of an action must be the result of saving faith, the conclusion that all conduct is sin which has not this saving faith as its ultimate source and origin (p. 584).53 It would be better to say: whose origin is not the shining of the Logos into the conscience. It is hazardous to regard believers as complete, but still more hazardous to distinguish only complete unbelievers from them. See the Exeg. Notes on Rom_14:1. On Augustine’s view, see Reiche, ii. p. 489.

On the doxology following here in some Codd. (brought over from the conclusion), see the Introduction, p. 35 [and Textual Notes on chap. 16.]; also on the controversies occasioned by the two concluding chapters. For further particulars, see Meyer, p. 507.54

See Rom_15:1 ff for DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL and HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Footnotes:

[1]Rom_14:1.—[The literal rendering is given above. For further explanations, see the Exeg. Notes.

[2]Rom_14:3.—[Rec. (with D3. L., Vulgate): καὶ ὁ μή. א1. A. B. C. D1. (most modern editors): ὁ δὲ μή. Meyer and Philippi, however, consider the latter a mechanical repetition from Rom_14:2.—The emendations suggested above are from Alford. They avoid the diffuseness of the E. V., but would scarcely be admissible in a revision. Eœter, non-eater, would be more exact.

[3]Rom_14:4.—[Rec., C3. D. F. L., Chrysostom, Theodoret, read Θεός. א. A. B. C1., early versions: κύπιος. The latter is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lange; the former by Philippi, Meyer, De Wette, Wordsworth. The Θεός might have been borrowed from Rom_14:2, as a correction; or the κύπιος may have been a gloss derived from τῷ ὶδίω̣. The probabilities are so equally balanced, that the MS. authority must decide in favor of κύριος.

[4]Rom_14:4.—[Rec., (L): δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν; a few authorities: δυνατὸς γάρ; א. A. B. C. D. F.: δυνατεῖ γάρ. The last is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. Fritzsche, Philippi: δυνατὸζγάρ.

[5]Rom_14:6—[The clause: καὶ ὁ μὴ θρονῶν τὴν ὴμέραν, κυπίω̣ οὐ θρονεῖ, is omitted in א. B. C1. D. F., Vulgate, Coptic, by Augustine, Jerome, Rufinus, Pelagius, Hilary, Mill, Lachmann, Meyer, Tregelles (in the versions of the Amer, Bible Union and of Five Ang. Clergymen). It is found in (Rec.) C3. L., Peshito, in Chrysostom and Theodoret; retained by Reiche, De Wette, Fritzsche, Philippi, Stuart, Wordsworth, Lange. Tischendorf varies in his different editions; Alford brackets it. The usual explanation of those who retain it is, that the omission was occasioned by the similar ending (θρονεῖ) in both clauses having misled some of the early copyists. To this Dr. Lange adds: “The fear that the clause might be used to support a disregard of Christian holidays.” Alford thinks it may have been omitted in the interest of the observance of the Lord’s Day. His own view on this subject probably leads him to bracket the clause. The uncial authority is so strongly against it, and the want of completeness in the antitheses might so easily have led to its insertion, that there need be but little hesitation in omitting it. Dr. Hodge is silent respecting the whole matter.

[6]Rom_14:6.—[The Rec. omits καί before ὁ ἐσθίων; but it is found in all the MSS., versions and fathers.

[7]Rom_14:8.—[The transcribers have made confusion with the verb ἀποθνήσκωμεν in this verse. The best-sustained reading gives the subjunctive ωμεν in the conditional clauses, and the indicative ομεν after τῷ. So Meyer, Alford, Tregelles.

[8]Rom_14:9.—[The Rec. reads καὶ ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη καὶ ἀνέζησεν. This is now generally rejected, and ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἒζησεν, accepted. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, De Wette, Meyer, Stuart, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles, and Lange. Many of the older critics also, though generally retaining καί before ἀπέθανεν. The following note from Meyer states the case quite fully and fairly: “The origin of all the variations can be readily explained from the reading ἀπέθανε καὶ ἒζησεν (Lachmann and Tischendorf), which is, all things considered, best sustained, and now generally accepted as original. Somewhat as follows: to ἒζησεν, ἀνέστη was added as a gloss; comp. 1Th_4:14. Then, through the acceptance of the gloss instead of the original word, arose the reading: ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη (F. G.): through the acceptance of the gloss besides the original word partly: ἀπέθανε κ. ἒζησε κ. ἀνέστη (Syr. Erp.), partly: ἀπέθ. κ. ἀνέστη (D2. L., &c.); from which latter, then, through the accidental or intentional repetition of AIV, arose the received reading (very poorly supported and spread by Erasmus). Finally, the transposition ἒζησε κ.ἀπέθ. κ. ἀνέστη (D1. E.) was made, after ἀπέθ. κ. ἀνέστη was read, through perverted criticism; in the attempt to restore ἒζησεν, neither the spuriousness of ἀνέστη nor the proper position of ἒζησεν being known, the latter was understood of the earthly life of Jesus, and hence placed before ἀπέθανεν.”

[9]Rom_14:10.—[Instead of χριστοῦ (Rec. א3. L., many versions and fathers), Θεοῦ is found in א1. A. B. C1. D. F., some fathers. The latter is accepted by Fritzsche, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles, Lange; the former by the older critics, Tholuck, De Wette, Philippi. Dr. Hodge says the latter “is retained by most critical editors;” but the current of criticism now sets against it; and what was true at the date of his first edition (1835), was scarcely correct at the appearance of the edition of 1866. χριστοῦ was probably inserted to correspond with Rom_14:9 (or from 2Co_5:10), though it is also claimed that Θεοῦ was substituted to correspond with Rom_14:11-12. Much has been said on both sides, but the MS. authority seems decisive in favor of Θεοῦ.

[10]Rom_14:11.—[From the LXX., Isa_45:23. Instead of ζῶ ἐγώ, the LXX. reads (at the beginning of the verse): κατ̓ ἐμαυτοῦ ὀμνύω. Instead of ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ Θεῷ, the LXX. (following the Hebrew): ὀμεῖται πᾶσαγλῶσσα τὸν Θεόν. The Alexandrine text of the LXX. agrees with this citation. Philippi and Meyer think this a change to conform with our verse; also, that Paul purposely varies, to express a general thought, which, however, lay at the basis of the special one expressed in the Old Testament passage.

[11]Rom_14:12.—[B. D1. F.: ἀποδωσει; Lachmann, Tregelles.א. A. C. D3. L.: δώσει; Philippi, Meyer, De Wette. Alford brackets ἀπο. The former is more usual with λόγον, hence the latter is to be preferred. The same authorities which support δώσει, insert οὖν.

[12]Rom_14:14.—[א. B. C. are cited by Alford in favor of ἐαυτοῦ (Rec.). A. D. F. G. L. read: αυτου (to which Tregelles adds B. Birch). The reading of the Rec. is adopted by Alford, but most modern editors follow the mass of uncial authorities. The only remaining dispute is whether it should be αὑτοῦ or αὑτοῦ. The former is adopted by Griesbach, Knapp, Philippi, Tholuck. De Wette, Meyer, Lange; the latter by Lachmann, Wordsworth, Jowett, Tregelles. If Theodoret (who refers it to Christ) be cited in favor of the latter, then Chrysostom’s explanation: τῆθύσει will support the former. Tischendorf varies (comp. his 7th ed., p. 58). See Winer, p. 143.

[13]Rom_14:15.—[א. A. B. C. D. F. G., Vulgate, and fathers: εἰ γάρ; adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Jowett, Tregelles, Lange. Rec. (with no uncial authorities) some versions: εἰδέ; adopted by Philippi, Hodge, De Wette, and the older editors. Dr. Hodge, in his new edition, states the exegetical ground for the latter reading, but is hardly justified in adding: “the majority of commentators and editors retain the common text.” Certainly the better supported reading is the more difficult one, hence doubly preferable on critical grounds. See the Exeg. Notes. Stuart says the sense seems to require γάρ, but takes no notice of the fact that it is read in the uncial MSS.

[14]Rom_14:16.—[D. F., a number of versions (Vulgate, Peshito), some fathers, read: ἡμῶν. A gloss, which is useful in the interpretation of the verse. It shows that τὸ ἀγαθόν was early referred to something which was a possession of the whole Church, not of a party in the Roman Church. Comp. the Exeg. Notes.

[15]Rom_14:18.—[Rec.: τούτοις, supported by א3. D3. L., most cursives, many versions (Syriac, Gothic), fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tertullian); adopted by Bengel, Fritzsche, Philippi, De Wette, Meyer (in 4th ed.), Hodge, and others. The singular: τούτω̣, is found in א1. A. B. C. D1. F., many versions, fathers (Origen, Rufinus, Augustine, Hilary, Pelagius, Bede); adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Alford, Wordsworth, Jowett, Tregelles, Lange. The uncial authority is overwhelmingly against the plural, which is the easier reading; hence adopted by those commentators who are more governed in their decisions by exegetical than critical grounds. The later critical editors, as a rule, favor the singular. Meyer thinks it more probable that the plural was altered into the singular on account of the ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίω̣, immediately preceding, than that the singular was changed into the plural on account of the three terms of the last clause of Rom_14:17. But he overlooks the difficulty of the singular. The change to the plural seems far more likely.

[16]Rom_14:19.—[C. D., most cursives and fathers: διώκωμεν; adopted by modern editors generally. א. A. B. F. L.: διώκομεν. The vowels were readily interchanged. The indicative is lectio difficillima; it is taken interrogatively by Lachmann (ed. min., not maj.), but this does not accord with the presence of ἂρα οὖν.

[17]Rom_14:21.—[א1. A. C, some versions and fathers, omit ἢ σκσνδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ. Inserted in א2. B. D. F. L.; retained by critical editors generally. (Lachmann, Tischendorf in later editions, Tregelles).

[18]Rom_14:22.—[After πίστιν, א. A. B. C. insert ἢν; adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (no points inserted between σύ and Θεοῦ). This reading would require us to render: The faith which thou hast, have it to thyself before God. Rec. D. F. L., many versions and fathers, omit ἢν. It is rejected by Philippi, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, Wordsworth; bracketted by Alford. Dr. Lange thinks it was inserted so as to emphasize πίστις as something stronger than a subjective opinion. On critical grounds, the probabilities are well balanced; on exegetical grounds, the briefer reading is preferable.—The punctuation is then open to discussion. If the sentence be taken interrogatively, it should be pointed accordingly; if not, a colon should be substituted.

[19]Rom_15:2[After ἒκαστος, the Rec. reads γάρ, which is found in no MS.; omitted by versions, fathers, and modern editors generally.

[20]Rom_15:2.—[Instead of ,ἡμῶν (א A. B. C. D1 3. L.), we find ὑμῶν in D2. F., in the Vulgate, and a number of fathers. The first person is adopted by modern editors.

[21]Rom_15:3.—[A verbatim citation from the LXX., Psa_68:10 (Heb. Psa_69:10; Eng. Psa_69:9). The LXX. is a literal rendering of the Hebrew.

[22]Rom_15:4.—[The Rec. reads προέγραθη) (the second time), with א3. A. L., some fathers. א1. B. C. D. F., Vulgate, Peshito, ἒγραθη; adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. B. has ἒγραθη the first time. The Amer. Bible Union omits the verb altogether; probably a typographical error, as there is no authority for it whatever.

[23]Rom_15:4.—[א. A. B. C. D. L., repeat διά before τῆς παρακλήσεως. Omitted in Rec., D. F., versions and fathers. It is adopted by Griesbach, Bengel, Lachmann, De Wette, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles; rejected by Hodge, Philippi, Meyer, because the transcriber might so readily repeat it before τῆς occurring a second time. Still, the most careful editors retain it. Dr. Hodge says, in his first and last editions: “The preponderance of evidence is greatly against it;” and yet, in citing the authorities in favor of it, omits B. and א., the two most important uncials, both of which had been collated carefully before his last edition appeared.—R.]

[24][A comparison of the two Epistles will show how much more sharply defined is the defence of the liberty of the gospel in the Galatian epistle. There, the Apostle appears as a champion of our freedom; here, as a judicious guide to those whom the truth was making free. The difference in tone is a striking proof of pedagogic wisdom.—R.]

[25][Comp. Lange’s Comm. Colossians, Introd., p. 7, where the character of these false teachers is discussed. The effort to define them by means of the nomenclature of subsequent heresies has led to the greatest variety of opinions. (Even the Ebionites do not date back of the destruction of Jerusalem.) They were ascetics, undoubtedly; their views might be called Ebionitic; yet, when we recall the Phrygian character, and consider the large Jewish element in that region, we see the seeds which were then just springing up, to bear fruit in the heresies so prolific in that region. Phrygian Ebionitism in the germ, is, perhaps, the best definition.—R.]

[26][The rebuke was mild indeed then, but how pregnant its meaning as we regard it to-day. Where could one repeat more appropriately than in Rome these words: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? “He who is strongest in the Roman Church of to-day, is “weak,” according to the Apostle’s judgment.—R.]

[27][Meyer, and others, adopt the opinion Dr. Lange here rejects. Dr. Hodge seems to incline to this view; but he is not decided in his preference of it, for he adds: “There is nothing inconsistent with the assumption that the weak brethren here spoken of were scrupulous Jewish Christians.”—R.]

[28][Dean Alford (following De Wette) presents a modification of this view: “The over-scrupulous Jew became an ascetic by compulsion. He was afraid of pollution by eating meats sacrificed or wine poured to idols; or even by being brought into contact, in foreign countries, with casual and undiscoverable uncleanness, which in his own land he knew the articles offered for food would be sure not to have incurred. He therefore abstained from all prepared food, and confined himself to that which he could trace from natural growth to his own use.” “All difficulty, then, is removed, by supposing that of these over-scrupulous Jews some had become converts to the gospel, and with neither the obstinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of ascetics (for these are not hinted at here), but in weakness of faith, and the scruples of an over-tender conscience, retained their habits of abstinence and observation of days.” But in a Church which was metropolitan, and hence cosmopolitan, other peculiarities might sharpen the distinction between the weak and the strong. Such divisions are the result of temperament, as well as of nationality and education.—R.]

[29][If the purely prohibitory sense of Rom_13:14 be accepted, the formal connection is with the general exhortations of chap. 8. Δέ has, then, a specifying force, though it is, perhaps, at the same time, Slightly contrastive (so Alford).—R.]

[30][So Alford: “In order to settle the points on which he has scruples.” Hodge: “Not presuming to sit in judgment on the opinions of your brethren.”—R.]

[31][Fritzsche, Tholuck, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, and most, apply this added clause (caution; Meyer) of the exhortation to the strong alone. Notwithstanding Dr. Lange’s objection, it seems the preferable view; for certainly the first part of the verse is addressed to the strong exclusively, and the διάκρισις, which means “power of distinguishing between” (Alford), is more applicable to them. Besides, in Rom_14:4 the exhortation comes in turn to the weak, &c. The word διαλογισμῶν means thoughts, generally in malum partem, in the New Testament. It is referred by the authors above named to the scrupulous thoughts cherished by the weak. The idea of doubt enters only in connection with this reference.—R.]

[32]That he does not mention bread, but vegetables, can be of service in the exegesis. Even tread first passed through the hands of many people; he could more easily have vegetables from the first hand. In this sense it was the shibboleth of the weak one. Therefore his motive was the careful avoidance of contamination from fellowship with the heathen.

[33][If, however, the judgment be confined to the finale and future one, there is an opposition, and (1) must be rejected. Alford: “Remains in the place and estimation of a Christian, from which those would eject him.” This is simplest and best.—R.]

[34][Dr. Hodge, who applies Rom_14:3 to both weak and strong, although admitting that the admonition is chiefly addressed to the weak, in his comments on this verse, makes a special application about treating the weak in faith with forbearance. This is altogether contrary to the context.—R.]

[35][Alford thinks this clause is inapplicable, if standing and falling at the great day are meant. He adds: “Notice, this argument is entirely directed to the weak, who uncharitably judges the strong; not vice-versâ. The weak imagines that the strong cannot be a true servant of God, nor retain his steadfastness amidst such temptation. To this the Apostle answers: (1) That such judgment belongs only to Christ, whose servant he is; (2) That the Lord’s almighty power is able to keep him up, and will do so.” That this expression is not to be taken as absolutely true of individuals, is evident; yet it must not be made too general.—R.]

[36][Dean Alford argues from this verse against the recognition of the Divine obligation of one day in seven by the Apostle. “The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is, that he knew of no such obligation, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, Alike.“ “It must be carefully remembered, that this inference does not concern the question of the observance of the Lord’s Day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, binding on us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the Divinely-appointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by which its sanctity was defended.” But the presence of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue, the recognition (and explanation) of the obligation to keep the Sabbath by our Lord, as well as a true conception of the relation of the Law to the Christian Dispensation, is against this sweeping view. To make of the Lord’s Day a merely ecclesiastical institution, is to deprive it of all sanctity under a free government. Alford, too, assumes that there is a difference of opinion implied here, respecting the observance of the Lord’s Day, and infers then, from the language of Rom_14:6, that the Apostle could not have recognized the obligation, or he would not have commended the man who did not regard the day. But there is no hint anywhere of a difference of opinion in regard to the observance of the Lord’s Day, though we may admit that such observance was not yet universal; besides, the text of Rom_14:6 is disputed. Comp. Lange’s Comm. Matthew, Mat_7:8, p. 217; Gal_4:10, pp. 106, 109; Colossians, Col_2:16, pp. 53, 58; Haldane, Romans, pp. 688–721.—Also the literature of the Sabbath question, as published by the N. Y. Sabbath Committee.—R.]

[37][The use of νοῦς, not πνεῦμα, shows that reflection judgment, and all the proper exercises of the practical reason, are called for in the decision of questions of personal duty. It is not the intuition of the πνεῦμα in any sense, but the full conviction of an educated conscience, which is here referred to.—Wordsworth has a quaint fancy respecting the verb πληροθορείσθω: “Let him sail on quietly, as it were, with a fair wind of persuasion filling the sails of his own mind.” He adds: “There may be a πληροθορία, a strong wind of persuasion, which will not waft a man to the harbor of Truth, but wreck him on the quicksands of Error.”—R.]

[38][“With the reading τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Rom_14:10), Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, and many others, so Philippi, have, found in τῷ Θεῷ a proof of the divinity of Christ. Rut the fundamental idea is rather, that it is God, whose judgment Christ holds; which thought is contained in the reading τοῦ Θεοῦ (Rom_14:10) also;” Meyer. It is quite, unnecessary to found arguments on disputed readings, when so many other passages are at hand. Most of those who thus do, are naturally influenced in their critical judgments by their doctrinal positions.—R.]

[39][Philippi, Stuart, Hodge; Jowett, and most, regard the two expressions is synonymous, the latter perhaps explanatory of the former. Alford distinguishes: “an occasion of stumbling, in act; an occasion of offence, in thought.” Webster and Wilkinson: “A larger obstacle against which we may strike the foot; a smaller one likely to catch the foot. The former denotes a certain, the latter a probable, cause of falling.—Wordsworth gives as a commentary on this verse, some extracts from Hooker, in reference to the non-conformists. These remarks are eminently “judicious,” but have a flavor of remote antiquity in their allusions to “obedience to rites and ceremonies constituted by lawful public authority.”—R.]

[40][If δέ be read, then this verse introduces a limitation to the practical application of the principle of Rom_14:14 (Hodge); but if γάρ be read, then we must take the passage as breviloquent or elliptical. Tholuck and Meyer join with εὶ μή, κ.τ.λ., finding here the statement of the reason why he must add that exception, viz., to oppose the uncharitableness which is involved in not regarding it. Alford makes it depend “on the suppressed restatement of the precept of Rom_14:13 : q. d., ‘But this knowledge is not to be your rule in practice, but rather,’ &c., as in Rom_14:13 : ‘for if,’ &c.” Philippi objects to both views, and urges his objections against the better sustained reading. He says Meyer’s interpretation is “manifestly too far-fetched;” but his own lay so near, that the temptation to alter the text was as strong as the desire to sustain the change against overwhelming evidence seems to be in the case of some commentators.—R.]

[41][Dr. Lange’s view appears to he correct, but some remarks must be added for the sake of clearness. The weak brother is evidently the one who is “grieved.” The offence of the strong brother is one against charity; hence the objection of Philippi, about. Paul’s paying special regard to the very judging he had forbidden, is altogether irrelevant; since charity is not to be measured by the propriety of the demands made upon it by the weak brethren. We reject the meaning injure, and (with Meyer) take λυπεῖται in a subjective sense. It must be distinguished from ἀπόλλυε, to which it leads as a possible result (Meyer, and others). It does not necessarily imply that the weak brother is led to imitate and thus to offend against his own conscience, although this is a probable result. Wordsworth suggests, as part of the injury, that he is led “to make a schism in the Church by separating from thee.”—R.]

[42][In his 4th edition, Meyer omits all reference to this point. Philippi, however, calls this verse a dictum probans for the possibility of apostasy. But as Dr. Hodge remarks: “Saints are preserved, not in despite of apostasy, but from apostasy. If they apostatize, they perish.”—R.]

[43][It is evident that ἀπώλεια refers to eternal destruction, since Christ offered His life to redeem from this (Meyer); yet, as this destruction (like the antithetical notion, eternal life) begins here, according to the scriptural representations, we must take it in its widest sense.—Alford thus paraphrases the verse, bringing out the contrast implied in the use of βρῶμα: “The mere λυπεῖν your brother, is an offence against love; how much greater an offence, then, if this λυπεῖν end in ἀπολλύειν—in raising (causing to act against his conscience, and so commit sin, and be in danger of quenching God’s Spirit within him) by a meal of thine—a brother, for whom Christ died!”—R.]

[44][Alford: “Your strength of faith is a good tiling; let it not pass into had repute.” This is more exact, and avoids borrowing an interpretation from 1 Cor. x. Yet it is still more open to the objection, that the matter here referred to is a possession of the whole Church. The change to the plural (ὑμῶν), its emphatic position, and the phrase ἀγαθόν itself, sufficiently attest the correctness of the view, which refers this “good” to the whole Church.—R.]

[45][Alford prefers: “in connection with, under the indwelling and influence of,” the Holy Ghost, to De Wette’s view, which he, however, says is true, though not expressed here.—The phrase “in the Holy Ghost” does not qualify the whole clause, but “joy” alone. Dr. Hodge defended the wider reference in his earlier editions, perhaps to guard from error the “ethical” view of the terms, which he then adopted. In the last edition, he leaves the matter doubtful.—R.]

[46][Calvin: “Hunc probatum hominibus testator, quia non possunt non reddere testimonium virtuti, quam oculis cernunt. Non quod semper filiis Dei parcant improbi.—Sed Paulus hic de sincero judicio loquitur, cui nulla est admista morositas, nullum odium, nulla superstitio.—R.]

[47][Hence, while a Christian may strive to reach such a principle in his practice, no brother, especially no “weak brother,” has a right to demand it of him, or obtrude his stumbling, so as to exact self-denial from others.—R.]

[48][Fritzsche opposes the interrogative form, because it would imply a negative answer. Rut there is little warrant for this. If the better correspondence with the context mentioned by Dr. Lange is based on this view of the force of the interrogative, then it disappears at once.—R.]

[49][Philippi and Wordsworth make the clause apply to both classes; Meyer, to the strong alone (presenting the advantage they have, as a motive to considerate conduct toward the weak, whoso danger is set forth in the next clause); Alford, and most, find here a commendation of the state in which the strong in faith are. His view (which is also that of Meyer and Hodge) is to be preferred to Dr. Lange’s ingenious and refined distinction.—R.]

[50][Meyer properly rejects the common view, which takes κρίνων as = κατακρίνων, but explains it thus: “who does not hold judgment over himself; i. e., who is so assured in his conviction, that his decision to do this or that incurs no self-judgment.” Dr. Lange’s explanation is occasioned by his view of the whole sentence.—R.]

[51][Meyer finds here an antithesis to “blessed” (Rom_14:22); but the idea of Divine condemnation must be properly limited. Philippi: “The act of eating itself condemns him, of course according to the Divine ordering, so that the justice of this verdict appears not only before God, but before men, and himself also.”—R.]

[52][It is greatly to be doubted whether this explanation necessarily involves this conclusion. It is easy to force upon this, or any other passage, some incorrect inference. For example, as Dr. Hodge well remarks: “It is wrong to do any thing which we think to be wrong. The converse of this proposition, however, is not true. It is not always right to do what we think to be right.” Alford says: “Here the Apostle has in view two Christians, both living by faith, and by faith doing acts pleasing to God: and he reminds them that whatever they do out of harmony with this great principle of their spiritual lives, belongs to the category of sin. The question touching the ‘infidelis’ must be settled by another inquiry: Can he whom we thus name have faith—such a faith as may enable him to do acts which are not sinful?—a question impossible for us to solve.” Certainly the Augustinian inference may be deduced far more directly from other passages; and it should not prejudice any against the view which claims that Christian faith must underlie the “faith” here referred to. Bengel: “Iannuitur ergo ipsa fides, qua fideles consentur, conscientiam informans et confirmans; partim fundamentum, partim norma reclæ actionis.” Hodge, Haldane, and Wordsworth, however, limit the meaning to something like subjective persuasion, which seems tame and unpauline. The author last named shows the pernicious effects of the other view, especially among the Puritans. But the tone is so well adapted to the days of the Stuarts, that one may be excused for surmising the existence of a prejudice against the Augustinian view. Dr. Lange takes the same middle ground with Alford (see above), combining both views: “confidence proceeding from saving faith.”—R.]

[53][Philippi’s view will not be understood unless more fully cited. He says: “πίστις here is not immediately justifying, saving faith, but the confidence springing therefrom, that all the action proceeding from it, and consistent with it, is acceptable to God. The proposition of Augustine, omnis infidelium vita peccatum est, finds here not, indeed, its direct, but its indirect proof. For, if every action which does not proceed from the confidence of its acceptableness to God is sin, and this confidence is the result of evangelical, saving faith alone, then it follows, that all conduct is sin which has not this saving faith as its ultimate source and origin.”—R.]

[54][On chaps, xv. and xvi. Baur of Tübingen has doubted the genuineness of these two chapters, but on such insufficient grounds that it is not necessary to enter upon the question. See Introd., p. 35. Various theories have been suggested (by Sender, Paulus, Erchhorn, Schulz, Ewald, and now by Renan), which admit that Paul wrote these two chapters, but deny them a place in this Epistle. For this, a plausible ground is found in the insertion of the doxology at the close of chap. xiv., in the long list of acquaintances (chap. xvi.) at Rome, where. Paul had never been—none of whom are mentioned in the Epistles written from Rome, especially in the salutation to Aquila and Priscilla, who were at Ephesus shortly before and shortly after the date of this Epistle. But Rome was the capital of the world, and many acquaintances might be there, and as readily depart. Were the salutations few, no doubt the critics would have urged this as an argument against its genuineness. Meyer says: “Among all the reasons which are adduced in support of these different opinions, none hold good, not even those which seem least founded upon mere arbitrariness.” The St. Paul of Renan has just appeared. He accepts our Epistle as genuine, but denies the correctness of its title, and also its integrity. The following is a résumé: “The editors of the final and accepted text of Paul’s letters had, for a general principle, to reject nothing and add nothing—but above all, to reject nothing. The common body, then, of the so-called Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter, an encyclical letter addressed to the churches of Ephesus and Thessalonica principally, but also to the brethren at Rome and one or more other places. Local and individual items were adjoined, according as the special destination of the general circular. These specialties were selected, and sewed on, so to speak, to the final edition, by honest editors, more desirous of saving all St. Paul’s authentic words than of nice literary form. Here is the explanation of repetitions, and of salutatory phrase, in the midst of the Epistle to the Romans, otherwise inexplicable in the text of a so clean, straightforward, inelegant, out logical writer as St. Paul.” It would seem that his view is but a vivacious and characteristic phase of the general theory advanced by the German authors named above.—R.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 14

1. Strong and Weak Brethren are the Lord’s Servants. (Rom 14:1-12.)

2. The True Way of Love. (Rom 14:13-23.)

Rom 14:1-12

The question concerning brethren who were weak in faith, how they are to be treated by those who are strong is now taken up. Those weak in the faith had not the complete knowledge of their position in Christ, though they knew Christ and loved Him. They did not realize that certain observances of days, or abstinences from meats and drinks, could not affect their salvation in any way. There were scruples and conscientious difficulties, as there are still among God’s people. One believeth he may eat all things, he knew his full Christian freedom--another who is weak eateth herbs. How are these two to treat each other? Were they to criticize and condemn one the other? “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.” The weak in faith are to be received, but not to doubtful points of reasonings; these questions are not to be brought up for discussion, or worse, to make them a test of Christian fellowship. Judging a brother, or condemning him on such matters is forbidden, for inasmuch as God hath received him, he is the Lord’s servant and not ours. The rebuke is “who art thou that thou judgest another’s servant? to his own Lord he standeth or falleth.” More than that, the Lord in His gracious power shall keep him in all his weakness. He bears with him, “the Lord is able to make him stand.” Each is responsible to the Lord. Each does it as unto the Lord. No one lives to himself, and no one dies to himself, we are all the Lord’s. There is also a day coming when we all must stand before His judgment seat and then He will judge, who knows the secrets of every heart. Therefore we must not judge. Every one, as stated in all these cases, should be fully persuaded in his own mind and should not judge another, but look forward to the judgment seat of Christ.

Rom 14:13-23

But more than that there should be loving tolerance for the brother. let the harsh judgment of the brother, whom God has received be abandoned; but judge this rather, “not to put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” There is nothing unclean in itself. Yet a brother may account something unclean, his conscience so judges, then it is unclean for him. The brother with the weak conscience must be considered. The law of love demands this. “If thy brother is grieved on account of thy food, thou walkest no longer in love; destroy not with thy food him for whom Christ died.” Therefore “it is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything, whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak.” “He that serves Christ in these things is acceptable and approved of men. We are to follow what makes for peace and edifies others. To the pure all things are pure; but if a person defiles his conscience, even though an unfounded scruple, to him it is unclean. Happy for him who, in boasting of his liberty by faith, does not go beyond his faith in what he does; and does not offend in what he allows himself to do; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If a man thinks he ought to honor a certain day, or abstain from a certain food, and then, for the sake of showing his liberty, does not do it, to him it is sin. It is not faith before God” (Synopsis).

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Conduct of Christians toward Such as Are weak in Faith. 14:1-23

Scruples with regard to food:

v. 1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

v. 2. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

v. 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.

v. 4. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall beholden up; for God is able to make him stand.

v. 5. One man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

v. 6. he that regards the day regards it unto the Lord; and he that regards 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.

The present section of St. Paul’s letter has reference to a special class of people in the Roman congregation, namely, to such as were weak in the faith, the apostle giving both them and the other members of the congregation a few rules as to their deportment toward each other. He addresses himself first of all to those that are firmly grounded in the faith. that are not bothered with scruples of conscience concerning various foods, especially the meats that were offered for sale in the shops. Him that is weak in the faith, that is not yet so firmly established on the basis of his faith, receive, welcome as a member in full and equivalent standing. There were only a few of such members in the congregation at Rome, but Paul was just as solicitous about their spiritual welfare as though there had been a great number. This small minority was to be welcomed and given all the privileges of membership in the congregation, but not for the condemnation of thoughts, not with the purpose of passing judgment upon their strange notions or scruples. The members should show all kindness and brotherliness, deal with the few scrupulous ones with all Christian tact, lest uncharitable criticism cause dissension. For the one, being strong in faith, has confidence to eat all things. The stronger members did not deem it much of a venture to eat all foods, even meat, and their behavior did not result in any spiritual damage to themselves. Their conscience remained clear, no matter what food it was that was placed before them. They had the conviction that their conduct in eating all things was in no way displeasing to God and did not interfere with their Christianity. And this conviction, in turn, rested upon their faith in Christ, which caused them to choose and to do only such things as were agreeable to their Savior. But those that lacked this confidence ate vegetable food only, fearing to partake of flesh that might have been offered as a heathen sacrifice, or they believed that the eating of meat in itself was harmful to their spiritual life. St. Paul addressed himself to both parties, giving to each one the instruction necessary for the maintenance of Christian harmony and charity: Let him that eats not despise him that eats not; such a one should not look down with contempt upon his weaker brother and his scruples with regard to food. And on the other hand, one that refuses to partake of meat should not condemn him that eats, as though he were less spiritual, as though his Christianity were not so strongly expressed and so consistently carried out. This warning against judging is substantiated by the statement: For God has accepted him: a person that eats meat without scruples is acting in full accordance with God’s will, he is assured of the grace of God. For who is lie that ventures to judge and condemn the servant of another man? It is not the proper thing, it should not be done, that any one should pass judgment upon a Christian brother who is Christ’s own; Christ has accepted him as one of His servants. He stands or falls with respect to his own lord. It is the business of each master, it concerns only him whether his servant stands or falls; he will take care of that. But he will remain standing, he will continue in his Christian state; for God is fully able to keep him upright, to hold him up and not let him come to grief in his Christianity. It is an easy matter for God to guide and guard also such a brother whose conscience permits him to partake of all manner of foods, with relation to whose constancy the weaker brethren are unduly concerned.

A second point of controversy is now touched upon: One, indeed, makes a distinction between various days, while the other rates all days alike; let everyone be fully persuaded in his own opinion. He that clings to a certain day does so to the Lord; and he that does not insist upon a certain day does so to the Lord, vv. 5-6. The weaker brethren in the congregation at Rome made a distinction between days for conscience’ sake, preferring a certain day of the week for the worship of the Lord, believing that it was absolutely necessary to devote one day entirely to prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, to spiritual edification. But the others, those that were stronger in faith, that had the confidence of Christian conviction based upon their knowledge of God’s will, esteemed all days alike and gave special preference to none. To them all days were equally holy and fit for the worship of God and for the study of His Word. And now the apostle says that both he that insists upon a distinction between days and he that does not favor such a preference should be fully persuaded in his own mind that his way is the one which suits his individual needs best. He intimates thereby that before God there is no distinction of days in the New Testament, and that therefore the choice of a certain day of the week as a day of worship is entirely a matter of Christian liberty. And therefore he that is concerned about a certain day and believes it to be in the interest of his spiritual life always to observe one certain day observes it unto the Lord; he must keep in mind that it is to the Lord’s service and honor that he makes the distinction, and not get the idea that he is performing an unusual work of merit. As a matter of fact, the stronger also, that keeps all days alike, sanctifying every one through the Word of God and prayer, serves the Lord. So "the strong should not despise the scrupulous, nor the scrupulous be censorious toward the strong. " This is evident again from the distinction between eating certain foods and abstaining from their use. If one eats all foods, not concerning himself about any specific distinctions, Act 10:14-15, nor worrying about the fact that the meat was taken from animals sacrificed to idols, 1Co 10:25, he makes use of the liberty which he has in Christ, thus honoring his Lord and Savior, as appears also from the fact that he returns thanks to God for the food, 1Co 10:30; 1Ti 4:4. And if one does not eat, if he abstains from eating meat or any other food in the belief that he will thus be placed into a better position to serve the Lord, he does so to his Lord; but he also gives thanks to God for whatever food he might partake of. So far as the expression of religious conviction is concerned and the condition of the heart with relation to God, there is no difference between the strong and the weak in faith.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

[The apostle begins this section with "but," thus marking its connection with the preceding paragraph as setting forth matter in the nature of an exception thereto. He has been exhorting his readers to armed activity and vigilance in the cause of righteousness, and he now enters his caveat lest they should turn this needful and virtuous aggressiveness into a sinful belligerency, so that the strong should devour the weak. The Christian is indeed called upon to wage constant warfare with sin, but as to all things of an immoral or indifferent nature he must suppress this martial spirit and show courteous and affectionate forbearance when dealing with the scruples of those whose consciences are by nature or education legalistic and puritanic. And the weak must show a like mutual consideration toward the liberties of the strong. This section is, as Lard remarks, "pre-eminently a chapter as to duties in regard to things indifferent in themselves." For things not indifferent there is another rule ( Gal_1:6-10 ; Gal_1:2 ). This section is also subordinately connected with the preceding paragraph by continuous reference to the second coming of Christ. (See Rom_14:4 ; Rom_14:10-12 ) Verses Rom_14:1-12 are addressed both to the strong and the weak; verses Rom_14:13-23 and Rom_14:1 are addressed to the strong alone, and verses Rom_14:2-13 are addressed both to the strong and the weak.] XIV. But him that is weak in faith receive [a strong word. See Act_28:2 ; Rom_15:7 ; Phm_1:15-17 ] ye, yet not for decision of scruples . [Do not by your reception, which ought to be to him a blessing, bring him into the misery of unrest by discussions and contentions which can end only in vain reasonings and valueless conclusions. Do not discuss his doubts and pompously and condescendingly insinuate that he is a fool for having them. The Jew and the Gentile have stood in contrast throughout this book and they are here still in this passage, and it is therefore not necessary to hunt, as does Eichhorn for Pythagorean or other scrupulous Gentiles. The Jew with his qualms sufficiently answers all the calls of the context. Educated under the narrowing, restricting influences of the law, he could not readily and at once comprehend the liberty of the gospel; hence he was weak in comparison with the Gentile who was unhampered by legalistic conceptions of meats, days, etc. ( Gal_5:1-15 ; Col_2:10-23 ; 1Ti_4:1-8 ). He is said to be "weak in the faith" because his judgment, still bound and tethered by silly scruples and obsolete laws, failed to assert that strength which the liberty of the new faith allowed it. Thus the Jewish conscience still shuddered at acts which the Gentile Christian regarded as wholly innocent and permissible; but, since its "failings leaned to virtue's side," and were usually capable of correction if patiently handled, it was to be treated with consideration and affectionate kindness. In fact, the apostle, for "is weak," uses a participle and not an adjective, thus indicating that the weakness is not inherent and permanent, but only a temporary defect, liable to be self-corrected at any moment.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Subdivision 3. (Rom 14:1-23; Rom 15:1-7).

The conscience to be in each one before the Lord.

We have now the settlement of questions which are not merely, as we may say, questions, but the settlement of which announces a principle which is of the utmost importance for us and for all with whom we walk. In our relationship to the Church, (for that is all that is spoken of here,) the question of conscience is one that has to be carefully considered. Conscience is individual to each one of us, but then that means that there are other consciences outside of ours, and which we have to regard. How important that we should know, both for ourselves how to keep a good conscience, and how to help to maintain at the same time that in others which we realize for ourselves to be of first necessity!

1. What the apostle puts first, therefore, here, is that conscience must be before the Lord. He is the Governor of the conscience and He alone, but this means then, of course, that we are to permit other consciences to be before the Lord. We must leave each one, therefore, to his liberty in this. Nay, we must fear to be a conscience to any one, and thus, with whatever good intent, to take one away from being before God. What is here sought to be established first, therefore, is just that the only authority for the Christian is that of the Lord. A serious question for us all is how far this is real with us. How much human relationships come in and hinder! There is the relationship of children with parents; they are to obey their parents in all things. The wife with her husband, also. What is she to do when there is a conflict of judgment with regard to anything? Alas, the snare which may beset us here is a very real one. "Subject in all things" it is urged sometimes is put as without limit, but the moment we bring in God, there are conditions necessarily implied by the very fact that He is God; and so necessarily implied that they need not even be named. We need scarcely to be reminded of them. If a parent taught his child to steal, is the child to be "subject in all things"? There is a limit somewhere, as is clear. Where is the limit? It can be found nowhere except here, that the plain will of the Lord governs, whatever human will may clash with it. We are not to drift from that for the sake of company with others, or under any plea whatever of relationship to others. That which makes real all relationships, which gives its value to them all, is above them all. Relationship to God is the first relationship of all, and to be indifferent to this is to make all else valueless. In fact, it is really to undo all the bonds of society; all human relationship is violated if that to God be violated. Thus it is that if we have sinned against our neighbor, it is sin against God, and if we sin against God, it is necessarily against our neighbor.

Necessarily, the things in which one has to yield here, therefore, are things indifferent. That is what the apostle is speaking of, of meats and drinks and days. It is supposed that on both sides the authority of the Lord is owned. One cannot be really liberal in things that are not one’s own. One can give up one’s own liberty where it is simply a question of that, and not only we can, but we ought. The supposition here is of religious scruple entirely, not of people without conscience, but of conscience in fact rigidly governed by that which to them, whatever be the truth of it, is the will of the Lord. If a man eats, he eats to the Lord, or if he eats not, it is still to the Lord; if he observes the day, he observes it to the Lord, or to the Lord he does not observe it. Here a question may be raised with regard to the Lord’s Day. How does the principle here affect that? It would seem that it does not come into the question; just because the Lord’s Day is given us not in the way of legal command, but as a privilege which must be accepted as privilege in order for the observance to be anything really acceptable to God, -not that it is supposed that a Christian could have a scruple religiously about observing the day in this case or on this ground. Religious scruples are the whole matter here and who could scruple to avail himself of the privilege of giving up a day to the Lord, a day free for him to be occupied with his own things, and in such a manner as we find Scripture before us? Question here, therefore, could scarcely be made. What the apostle has before him is, of course, as the meats and drinks show, the Jewish distinction of meats and days, which has passed away, but which, nevertheless, may have a real power over the minds of some who realize that these things were once given of God, and who do not see how He has brought us out of them. Here the principle applies which the apostle has stated elsewhere, that to those who were under the law he became as under the law, "not being myself under the law," as he carefully adds; "that I might gain those that are under the law." These are the questions, but the principle as we have said, the first principle here, is that the conscience is to be before the Lord alone; and that we are to leave every Christian free to act before God. We must not judge. The Lord will do that. "Every knee shall bow to Him and every tongue confess to God." It is of the first importance that in every question of conscience this should be maintained.

2. But there is another motive beside, that of duty to our brother. Our love to our brother is to be a motive. We are to consider what it means to put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in a brother’s way. Let it be the lightest thing imaginable, the use of only meat to him unclean, yet our use of it may lead him into that which he has not faith for, and how could love possibly do this? A terrible thing it is to lead a person to act without conscience; that is, therefore, to sin against God. It is a thing which will necessarily have influence, if self-judgment do not come in, upon the whole character of his life and ways. We may be for ourselves doing that which is perfectly lawful to us, (in itself lawful,) and yet the question of a brother’s conscience with regard to it cannot be ignored. We are not forced to eat or drink, because it is our privilege to do so. The Kingdom of God does not in its character consist of eating and drinking and such like things, but in "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Here the one who is, while free in his inmost soul, a bond-servant to Christ, -(the apostle puts the strongest term) -will not allow the freedom that he really has to prevent him forgetting that he is bound in every way to use his freedom to glorify Christ with it; this man is "well pleasing to God and approved of men." We are to pursue, therefore, the things that are for peace, and the things that are for edification with regard to others. Think of destroying God’s work in another for the sake of a piece of meat; for while the things themselves may be clean, it still is evil to the man who eats while he stumbles over it. "It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is weak." You may say, you have faith. Well, he says, but faith is after all the lowliest of things. Faith is realized dependence, is it not? Act in it in lowliness, "Have it to thyself before God;" and remember that, "Happy is he who does not bring judgment upon himself in that which be approveth;" but this is the very thing that the doubter does. He is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." How important is this principle, and in how wide a sphere! How important it is that we should so act in every case as not to induce the weakest or those nearest to us, -where our conduct is apt to have the strongest weight, -to walk without God! It will be no excuse for them before Him, to say that they have followed us. God’s will is not so far to seek and not so hard to be understood as to allow of excuse here on the part of any, but the point is clearly especially for the strong, that they are not, by their strength, really to force others into paths, which, because doubtful to them, are necessarily wrong, even though the path looked at in itself may be a right one.

3. There is another principle which comes in here, though it be understood, as we may say, all the way through. We are here for the glory of God. "We that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for that which is good to edification;" not, therefore, as seeking to please him merely, but with a careful estimate of what will be blessing for him. As for pleasing ourselves in such things, "Christ pleased not Himself." He who was for God in the world always, who gave Himself no margin, desired none, because His law was in His heart, -"Christ pleased not Himself," but "the reproaches of them that reproached Thee," He says, "fell on Me." These things are, it is plain, then, principles of the highest importance for the Christian, and the Scriptures lead us in paths which are not merely right, but which have in them the blessing and the joy which go with the right, for in this way God is the God of endurance and of comfort. The comfort is to enable to endure, and it is abundant for this. It is thus He would make us "like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus," in order that we may, "with one accord, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, then, is that which finally governs all. We are to "receive one another (it is plain from the beginning in what sense he means this) even as Christ received us, to the glory of God." The principle, of course, we may use as widely as it will carry us, but we most remember what the apostle is about when he is speaking so. He is simply enjoining the reception of one another without regard to these things which are indifferent in themselves. Here he can urge the glory of God as to be maintained by that which, in such cases ignores this difference.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 29

CHRISTIAN DUTY: MUTUAL TENDERNESS AND TOLERANCE: THE SACREDNESS OF EXAMPLE

Rom_14:1-23

BUT him who is weak-we might almost render, him who suffers from weakness, in his faith (in the sense here not of creed, a meaning of πίστις rare in St. Paul, but of reliance on his Lord; reliance not only for justification but, in this case, for holy liberty), welcome into fellowship-not for criticisms of his scruples, of his διαλογισμοί, the anxious internal debates of conscience. One man believes, has faith, issuing in a conviction of liberty, in such a mode and degree as to eat all kinds of food; but the man in weakness eats vegetables only; an extreme case, but doubtless not uncommon, where a convert, tired out by his own scruples between food and food, cut the knot by rejecting flesh meat altogether. The eater-let him not despise the non-eater; while the non-eater-let him not judge the eater: for our God welcomed him to fellowship, when he came to the feet of His Son for acceptance. You-who are you, thus judging Anothers domestic? To his own Lord, his own Master. he stands, in approval, -or, if that must be, falls under displeasure; but he shall be upheld in approval; for able is that Lord to set him so, to bid him "stand," under His sanctioning smile. One man distinguishes day above day; while another distinguishes every day; a phrase paradoxical but intelligible; it describes the thought of the man who, less anxious than his neighbour about stated "holy days," still aims not to "level down" but to "level up" his use of time; to count every day "holy," equally dedicated to the will and work of God. Let each be quite assured in his own mind; using the thinking power given him by his Master, let him reverently work the question out, and then live up to his ascertained convictions, while (this is intimated by the emphatic "his own mind") he respects the convictions of his neighbour. The man who "minds" the day, the "holy day" in question, in any given instance, to the Lord he "minds" it; (and the man who "minds" not the day, to the Lord he does not "mind" it); both parties, as Christians, in their convictions and their practice, stand related and responsible, directly and primarily to the Lord; that fact must always govern and qualify their mutual judgments. And the eater, the man who takes food indifferently without scruple, to the Lord he eats, for he gives thanks at his meal to God; and the non-eater, to the Lord he does not eat the scrupled food, and gives thanks to God for that of which his conscience allows him to partake.

The connection of the paragraph just traversed with what went before it is suggestive and instructive. There is a close connection between the two; it is marked expressly by the "but" (δέ) of ver. 1 (Rom_14:1), a link strangely missed in the Authorised Version. The "but" indicates a difference of thought, however slight, between the two passages. And the differenced as we read it, is this. The close of the thirteenth chapter has gone all in the direction of Christian wakefulness, decision, and the battlefield of conquering faith. The Roman convert, roused by its trumpet strain, will be eager to be up and doing, against the enemy and for his Lord, armed from head to foot with Christ. He will bend his whole purpose upon a life of open and active holiness. He will be filled with a new sense at once of the seriousness and of the liberty of the Gospel. But then some "weak brother" will cross his path. It will be some recent convert, perhaps from Judaism itself, perhaps an ex-pagan, but influenced by the Jewish ideas so prevalent at the time in many Roman circles. This Christian, not untrustful, at least in theory, of the Lord alone for pardon and acceptance, is, however, quite full of scruples which, to the man fully "armed with Christ," may seem, and do seem, lamentably morbid, really serious mistakes and hindrances. The "weak brother" Spends much time in studying the traditional rules of fast and feast, and the code of permitted food. He is sure that the God who has accepted him will hide His face from him if he lets the new moon pass like a common day; or if the Sabbath is not kept by the rule, not of Scripture, but of the Rabbis. Every social meal gives him painful and frequent occasion for troubling himself, and others; he takes refuge perhaps in an anxious vegetarianism, in despair of otherwise keeping undefiled. And inevitably such scruples do not terminate in themselves. They infect the mans whole tone of thinking and action. He questions and discusses everything, with himself, if not with others. He is on the way to let his view of acceptance in Christ grow fainter and more confused. He walks, he lives; but he moves like a man chained, and in a prison.

Such a case as this would be a sore temptation to the "strong" Christian. He would be greatly inclined, of himself, first to make a vigorous protest, and then, if the difficulty proved obstinate, to think hard thoughts of his narrow-minded friend; to doubt his right to the Christian name at all; to reproach him, or (worst of all) to satirise him. Meanwhile the "weak" Christian would have his harsh thoughts too. He would not, by any means for certain, show as much meekness as "weakness." He would let his neighbour see, in one way or other, that he thought him little better than a worldling, who made Christ an excuse for personal self-indulgence.

How does the Apostle meet the trying case, which must have crossed his own path so often, and sometimes in the form of a bitter opposition from those who were "suffering from weakness in their faith"? It is quite plain that his own convictions lay with "the strong," so far as principle was concerned. He "knew that nothing was unclean" (Rom_14:14). He knew that the Lord was not grieved, but pleased, by the temperate and thankful use, untroubled by morbid fears, of His natural bounties. He knew that the Jewish festival system had found its goal and end in the perpetual "let us keep the feast" {1Co_5:3} of the true believers happy and hallowed life. And accordingly he does, in passing, rebuke "the weak" for their harsh criticisms (κρίνειν) of "the strong." But then, he throws all the more weight, the main weight, on his rebukes and warnings to "the strong." Their principle might be right on this great detail. But this left untouched the yet more stringent overruling principle, to "walk in love"; to take part against themselves; to live in this matter, as in everything else, for others. They were not to be at all ashamed of their special principles. But they were to be deeply ashamed of one hours unloving conduct. They were to be quietly convinced, in respect of private judgment. They were to be more than tolerant-they were to be loving-in respect of common life in the Lord.

Their "strength" in Christ was never to be ungentle; never to be "used like a giants." It was to be shown, first and most, by patience. It was to take the form of the calm, strong readiness to understand anothers point of view. It was to appear as reverence for anothers conscience, even when the conscience went astray for want of better light.

Let us take this apostolic principle out into modern religious life. There are times when we shall be specially bound to put it carefully in relation to other principles, of course. When St. Paul, some months earlier, wrote to Galatia, and had to deal with an error which darkened the whole truth of the sinners way to God as it lies straight through Christ, he did not say, "Let every man be quite assured in his own mind." He said {Rom_1:8} "If an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel, which is not another, let him be anathema." The question there was, Is Christ all, or is He not? Is faith all, or is it not, for our laying hold of Him? Even in Galatia, he warned the converts of the miserable and fatal mistake of "biting and devouring one another". {Gal_5:15} But he adjured them not to wreck their peace with God upon a fundamental error. Here, at Rome, the question was different; it was secondary. It concerned certain details of Christian practice. Was an outworn and exaggerated ceremonialism a part of the will of God, in the justified believers life? It was not so, as a fact. Yet it was a matter on which the Lord, by His Apostle, rather counselled than commanded. It was not of the foundation. And the always overruling law for the discussion was-the tolerance born of love. Let us in our day remember this, whether our inmost sympathies are with "the strong" or with "the weak." In Jesus Christ, it is possible to realise the ideal of this paragraph even in our divided Christendom. It is possible to be convinced, yet sympathetic. It is possible to see the Lord for ourselves with glorious clearness, yet to understand the practical difficulties felt by others, and to love, and to respect, where there are even great divergences. No man works more for a final spiritual consensus than he who, in Christ, so lives.

Incidentally meantime, the Apostle, in this passage which so curbs "the strong," lets fall maxims which forever protect all that is good and true in that well-worn and often misused phrase, "the right of private judgment." No spiritual despot, no claimant to be the autocratic director of a conscience, could have written those words, "Let every man be quite certain in his own mind"; "Who art thou that judgest Anothers domestic?" Such sentences assert not the right so much as the duty, for the individual Christian, of a reverent "thinking for himself." They maintain a true and noble individualism. And there is a special need just now in the Church to remember, in its place, the value of Christian individualism. The idea of the community, the society, is just now so vastly prevalent (doubtless not without the providence of God) in human life, and also in the Church, that an assertion of the individual, which was once disproportionate, is now often necessary, lest the social idea in its turn should be exaggerated into a dangerous mistake. Coherence, mutuality, the truth of the Body and the Members; all this, in its place, is not only important, but divine. The individual must inevitably lose where individualism is his whole idea. But it is ill for the community, above all for the Church, where in the total the individual tends really to be merged and lost. Alas for the Church where the Church tries to take the individuals place in the knowledge of God, in the love of Christ, in the power of the Spirit. The religious Community must indeed inevitably lose where religious communism is its whole idea. It can be perfectly strong only where individual consciences are tender and enlightened; where individual souls personally know God in Christ; where individual wills are ready, if the Lord call, to stand alone for known truth even against the religious Society; -if there also the individualism is not self-will, but Christian personal responsibility; if the man "thinks for himself" on his knees; if he reverences the individualism of others, and the relations of each to all.

The individualism of Romans 14, asserted in an argument full of the deepest secrets of cohesion, is the holy and healthful thing it is because it is Christian. It is developed not by the assertion of self, but by individual communion with Christ.

Now he goes on to further and still fuller statements in the same direction.

For none of us to himself lives, and none of us to himself dies. How, and wherefore? Is it merely that "we" live lives always, necessarily related to one another? He has this in his heart indeed. But he reaches it through the greater, deeper, antecedent truth of our relation to the Lord. The Christian is related to his brother Christian through Christ, not to Christ through his brother, or through the common Organism in which the brethren are "each others limbs." "To the Lord," with absolute directness, with a perfect and wonderful immediateness, each individual Christian is first related. His life and his death are "to others," but through him. The Masters claim is eternally first; for it is based direct upon the redeeming work in which He bought us for Himself.

For whether we live, to the Lord we live; and whether we be dead, to the Lord we are dead; in the state of the departed, as before, "relation stands." Alike, therefore, whether we be dead, or whether we live, the Lords we are; His property, bound first and in everything to His possession. For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He might become Lord of us both dead and living.

Here is the profound truth seen already in earlier passages in the Epistle. We have had it reasoned out, above all in the sixth chapter, in its revelation of the way of Holiness, that our only possible right relations with the Lord are clasped and governed by the fact that to Him we rightly and everlastingly belong. There, however, the thought was more of our surrender under his rights. Here it is of the mighty antecedent fact, under which our most absolute surrender is nothing more than the recognition of His indefeasible claim. What the Apostle says here, in this wonderful passage of mingled doctrine and duty, is that, whether or no we are owning our vassalage to Christ, we are nothing if not de jure His vassals. He has not only rescued us, but so rescued us as to buy us for His own. We may be true to the fact in our internal attitude; we may be oblivious of it; but we cannot get away from it. It looks us every hour in the face, whether we respond or not. It will still look us in the face through the endless life to come.

For manifestly it is this objective aspect of our "belonging" which is here in point. St. Paul, is not reasoning with the "weak" and the "strong" from their experience, from their conscious loyalty to the Lord. Rather, he is calling them to a new realisation of what such loyalty should be. It is in order to this that he reminds them of the eternal claim of the Lord, made good in His death and Resurrection; His claim to be so their Master, individually and altogether, that every thought about each other was to be governed by that claim of His on them all. "The Lord" must always interpose; with a right inalienable. Each Christian is annexed, by all the laws of Heaven, to Him. So each must-not make, but realise that annexation, in every thought about neighbour and about brother.

The passage invites us meantime to further remark, in another direction. It is one of those utterances which, luminous with light given by their context, shine also with a light of their own, giving us revelations independent of the surrounding matter. Here one such revelation appears; it affects our knowledge of the Intermediate State.

The Apostle, four times over in this short paragraph, makes mention of death, and of the dead. "No one of us dieth to Himself"; "Whether we die, we die unto the Lord"; "Whether we die, we are the Lords"; "That He might be the Lord of the dead." And this last sentence, with its mention not of the dying, but of the dead, reminds us that the reference in them all is to the Christians relation to his Lord, not only in the hour of death, but in the state after death. It is not only that Jesus Christ, as the slain One risen, is absolute Disposer of the time and manner of our dying. It is not only that when our death comes we are to accept it as an opportunity for the "glorifying of God" {Joh_21:19, Php_1:20} in the sight and in the memory of those who know of it. It is that when we have "passed through death," and come out upon the other side,

"When we enter yonder regions, When we touch the sacred shore," our relation to the slain One risen, to Him who, as such, "hath the keys of Hades and of death," {Rev_1:18} is perfectly continuous and the same. He is our absolute Master, there as well as here. And we, by consequence and correlation, are vassals, servants, bondservants to Him, there as well as here.

Here is a truth which, we cannot but think, richly repays the Christians repeated remembrance and reflection; and that not only in the way of asserting the eternal rights of our blessed Redeemer over us, but in the way of shedding light, and peace, and the sense of reality and expectation, on both the prospect of our own passage into eternity and the thoughts we entertain of the present life of our holy beloved ones who have entered into it before us.

Everything is precious which really assists the soul in such thoughts, and at the same time keeps it fully and practically alive to the realities of faith, patience, and obedience here below, here in the present hour. While the indulgence of unauthorised imagination in that direction is almost always enervating and disturbing to the present action of Scriptural faith, the least help to a solid realisation and anticipation, supplied by the Word that cannot lie, is in its nature both hallowing and strengthening. Such a help we have assuredly here.

He who died and rose again is at this hour, in holy might and right, "the Lord" of the blessed dead. Then, the blessed dead are vassals and servants of Him who died and rose again. And all our thought of them, as they are now, at this hour, "in those heavenly habitations, where the souls of them that sleep in the Lord Jesus enjoy perpetual rest and felicity," gains indefinitely in life, in reality, in strength and glory, as we see them, through this narrow but bright "door in heaven," {Rev_5:1} not resting only but serving also before their Lord, who has bought them for His use, and who holds them in His use quite as truly now as when we had the joy of their presence with us, and He was seen by us living and working in them and through them here.

True it is that the leading and essential character of their present state is rest, as that of their resurrection state will be action. But the two states overflow into each other. In one glorious passage the Apostle describes the resurrection bliss as also "rest". {2Th_1:7} And here we have it indicated that the heavenly intermediate rest is also service. What the precise nature of that service is we cannot tell. "Our knowledge of that life is small." Most certainly, "in vain our fancy strives to paint" its blessedness, both of repose and of occupation. This is part of our normal and God-chosen lot here, which is to "walk by faith, not by sight," {2Co_5:7} ού διά είδους, "not by Object seen," not by objects seen. But blessed is the spiritual assistance in such a walk as we recollect, step by step, as we draw nearer to that happy assembly above, that, whatever be the manner and exercise of their holy life, it is life indeed; power, not weakness; service, not inaction. He who died and revived is Lord, not of us only, but of them.

But from this excursion into the sacred Unseen we must return. St. Paul is intent now upon the believers walk of loving large heartedness in this life, not the next. But you-why do you judge your brother? (he takes up the verb, κρίνειν, used in his former appeal to the "weak," Rom_14:3). Or you too (he turns to the "strong"; see again Rom_14:3)-why do you despise your brother? For we shall stand, all of us, on one level, whatever were our mutual sentiments on earth, whatever claim we made here to sit as judges on our brethren, before the tribunal of our God. For it stands written, {Isa_45:23} "As I live, saith the Lord, sure it is as My eternal Being, that to Me, not to another, shall bend every knee; and every tongue shall confess, shall ascribe all sovereignty, to God," not to the creature. So then each of us, about himself, not about the faults or errors of his brother, shall give account to God.

We have here, as in 2Co_5:10, and again, under other imagery, 1Co_3:11-15, a glimpse of that heart-searching prospect for the Christian, his summons hereafter, as a Christian, to the tribunal of his Lord. In all the three passages, and now particularly in this, the language, though it lends itself freely to the universal Assize, is limited by context, as to its direct purport, to the Masters scrutiny of His own servants as such. The question to be tried and decided (speaking after the manner of men) at His "tribunal," in this reference, is not that of glory or perdition; the persons of the examined are accepted; the inquiry is in the domestic court of the Palace, so to speak; it regards the award of the King as to the issues and value of His accepted servants labour and conduct, as His representatives, in their mortal life. "The Lord of the servants cometh, and reckoneth with them". {Mat_25:19} They have been justified by faith. They have been united to their glorious Head. They "shall be saved," {1Co_3:15} whatever be the fate of their "work." But what will their Lord say of their work? What have they done for Him, in labour, in witness, and above all in character? He will tell them what He thinks. He will be infinitely kind; but He will not flatter. And somehow, surely, -"it doth not yet appear" how, but somehow-eternity, even the eternity of salvation, will bear the impress of that award, the impress of the past of service, estimated by the King. "What shall the harvest be?"

And all this shall take place (this is the special emphasis of the prospect here) with a solemn individuality of inquiry. "Every one of us-for himself-shall give account." We reflected, a little above, on the true place of "individualism" in the life of grace. We see here that there will indeed be a place for it in the experiences of eternity. The scrutiny of "the tribunal" will concern not the Society, the Organism, the total, but the member, the man. Each will stand in a solemn solitude there, before his divine Examiner. What he was, as the Lords member, that will be the question. What he shall be, as such, in the functions of the endless state, that will be the result.

Let us not be troubled over that prospect with the trouble of the worldling, as if we did not know Him who will scrutinise us, and did not love Him. Around the thought of His "tribunal," in that aspect, there are cast no exterminating terrors. But it is a prospect fit to make grave and full of purpose the life which yet "is hid with Christ in God," and which is life indeed through grace. It is a deep reminder that the beloved Saviour is also, and in no figure of speech, but in an eternal earnest, the Master too. We would not have Him not to be this. He would not be all He is to us as Saviour, were He not this also, and forever.

St. Paul hastens to further appeals, after this solemn forecast. And now all his stress is laid on the duty of the "strong" to use their "strength" not for self-assertion, not for even spiritual selfishness, but all for Christ, all for others, all in love.

No more therefore let us judge one another; but judge, decide, this rather-not to set stumblingblock for our brother, or trap. I know-he instances his own experience and principle-and am sure in the Lord Jesus, as one who is in union and communion with Him, seeing truth and life from that viewpoint, that nothing, nothing of the sort in question, no food, no time, is "unclean" of itself; literally, "by means of itself," by any inherent mischief; only to the man who counts anything "unclean," to him it is unclean. And therefore you, because you are not his conscience, must not tamper with his conscience. It is, in this case, mistaken; mistaken to his own loss, and to the loss of the Church. Yes, but what it wants is not your compulsion, but the Lords light. If you can do so, bring that light to bear, in a testimony made impressive by holy love and unselfish considerateness. But dare not, for Christs sake, compel a conscience. For conscience means the mans best actual sight of the law of right and wrong. It may be a dim and distorted sight; but it is his best at this moment. He cannot violate it without sin, nor can you bid him do so without yourself sinning. Conscience may not always see aright. But to transgress conscience is always wrong.

For-the word takes up the argument at large, rather than the last detail of it-if for foods sake your brother suffers pain, the pain of a moral struggle between his present convictions and your commanding example, you have given up walking (ούκέτι περιπατεις) love wise. Do not not, with your food, (there is a searching point in the "your," touching to the quick the deep selfishness of the action,) work his ruin for whom Christ died.

Such sentences are too intensely and tenderly in earnest to be called sarcastic; otherwise, how fine and keen an edge they carry! "For foods sake!" "With your food!" The man is shaken out of the sleep of what seemed an assertion of liberty, but was after all much rather a dull indulgence of-that is, a mere slavery to-himself. "I like this meat; I like this drink; I dont like the worry of these scruples; they interrupt me, they annoy me." Unhappy man! It is better to be the slave of scruples than of self. In order to allow yourself another dish-you would slight an anxious friends conscience, and, so far as your conduct is concerned, push him to a violation of it. But that means, a push on the slope which leans towards spiritual ruin. The way to perdition is paved with violated consciences. The Lord may counteract your action, and save your injured brother from himself-and you. But your action is, none the less, calculated for his perdition. And all the while this soul, for which, in comparison with your dull and narrow "liberty"; you care so little, was so much cared for by the Lord that He-died for it.

Oh, consecrating thought, attached now, forever, for the Christian, to every human soul which he can influence: "For whom Christ died!"

Do not therefore let your good, your glorious creed of holy liberty in Christ, be railed at, as only a thinly-veiled self-indulgence after all; for the kingdom of our God is not feeding and drinking; He does not claim a throne in your soul, and in your Society, merely to enlarge your bill of fare, to make it your sacred privilege, as an end in itself, to take what you please at table; but righteousness, surely here, in the Roman Epistle, the "righteousness" of our divine acceptance, and peace, the peace of perfect relations with Him in Christ, and joy in the Holy Spirit, the pure strong gladness of the justified, as in their sanctuary of salvation they drink the "living water," and "rejoice always in the Lord." For he who in this way lives as bondservant to Christ, spending his spiritual talents not for himself, but for his Master, is pleasing to his God, and is genuine to his fellow men. Yes, he stands the test of their keen scrutiny. They can soon detect the counterfeit under spiritual assertions which really assert self. But their conscience affirms the genuineness of a life of unselfish and happy holiness; that life "reverbs no hollowness."

Accordingly, therefore, let us pursue the interests of peace, and the interests of an edification which is mutual; the "building up" which looks beyond the man to his brother, to his brethren, and tempers by that look even his plans for his own spiritual life.

Again he returns to the sorrowful grotesque of preferring personal comforts, and even the assertion of the principle of personal liberty, to the good of others. Do not for foods sake be undoing the work of our God. "All things are pure"; he doubtless quotes a watchword often heard; and it was truth itself in the abstract, but capable of becoming a fatal fallacy in practice; but anything is bad to the man who is brought by a stumblingblock to eat it. Yes, this is bad. What is good in contrast?

Good it is not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine (a word for our time and its conditions), and not to do anything in which your brother is stumbled, or entrapped, or weakened. Yes, this is Christian liberty; a liberation from the strong and subtle law of self; a freedom to live for others, independent of their evil, but the servant of their souls.

You-the faith you have, have it by yourself, in the presence of your God. You have believed; you are therefore in Christ; in Christ you are therefore free, by faith, from the preparatory restrictions of the past. Yes; but all this is not given you for personal display, but for divine communion. Its right issue is in a holy intimacy with your God, as in the confidence of your acceptance you know Him as your Father, "nothing between." But as regards human intercourse, you are emancipated not that you may disturb the neighbours with shouts of freedom and acts of license, but that you may be at leisure to serve them in love. Happy the man who does not judge himself, who does not, in effect, decide against his own soul, in that which he approves, δοκιμάζει, pronounces satisfactory to conscience. Unhappy he who says to himself, "This is lawful," when the verdict is all the while purchased by self-love, or otherwise by the feat: of man, and the soul knows in its depths that the thing is not as it should be. And the man who is doubtful, whose conscience is not really satisfied between the right and wrong of the matter, if he does eat, stands condemned, in the court of his own heart, and of his aggrieved Lords opinion, because it was not the result of faith; the action had not, for its basis, the holy conviction of the liberty of the justified. Now anything which is not the result of faith, is sin; that is to say, manifestly, "anything" in such a case as this; any indulgence, any obedience to example, which the man, in a state of inward ambiguity, decides for on a principle other than that of his union with Christ by faith.

Thus the Apostle of Justification, and of the Holy Spirit, is the Apostle of Conscience too. He is as urgent upon the awful sacredness of our sense of right and wrong, as upon the offer and the security, in Christ, of peace with God, and the holy Indwelling, and the hope of glory. Let our steps reverently follow his, as we walk with God, and with men. Let us "rejoice in Christ Jesus," with a "joy" which is "in the Holy Ghost." Let us reverence duty, let us reverence conscience, in our own life, and also in the lives around us.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

14:1–15:7 Paul moves to a specific issue that was causing conflict in the church at Rome. The church in Rome was embroiled in a dispute between people who were weak in faith and people who were strong (see 15:1) regarding certain practices. Throughout this section, Paul instructs believers to be tolerant toward others and their practices; he is convinced that people on both sides of the issue are genuine believers, and he does not think the issues they are fighting over are essential to the faith.

14:1 Being weak in faith means having scruples against doing certain things that Christian liberty would allow. In Rome, most of the weak in faith were Jewish Christians whose consciences did not give them liberty from certain requirements of Jewish law.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 14:1. Ἀσθενοῦντα) The participle is milder than the adjective ἀσθενῆ, weak.—πίστει, in faith) Even still the apostle refers all things to faith.—προσλαμβάνεσθε, receive ye) We have the same word, Rom 14:3, ch. Rom 11:15, Rom 15:7; Phm 1:17. [Salvation has come to both Jews and Gentiles by faith; therefore neither party should impede the other, but both should afford mutual assistance.—V. g.]—μὴ εἰς, not into) He who urges another to do, what he himself is doing, appears to receive him, but then he receives him so, that his thoughts, διαλογισμοὶ, are driven into [to entertain] doubts, διακρίσεις, so that he cannot in his own feeling on the particular point, be borne along with full satisfaction, πληροφορεῖσθαι [be fully persuaded, Rom 14:5], the word ἀδιαφορεῖν is the antithesis to the word διακρίνειν. He calls them doubts in the thoughts, for those in doubt think more than they speak.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_14:1. Δέ] passing over from the due limitation of care for the flesh (Rom_13:14) to those who, in the matter of this limitation, pursue not the right course, but one springing from weakness of faith.

τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει] That πίστις here also denotes faith in Christ, is self-evident; the infirmity, however, is not conceived ofaccording to the general πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Mar_9:23; 1Co_13:2)in a general sense and without any more precise character, but, in conformity with the context (see Rom_14:2; Rom_14:14; Rom_14:22-23), as a want of that ethical strength of faith, in virtue of which one may and should have, along with his faith, the regulative principle of moral conviction and certainty corresponding to its nature and contents. In this more definite and precise sense those ascetics were weak in faith. Had they not been so, the discernment of conscience and assurance of conscience, analogous to faith, would have enabled them to be free from doubt and scruple in respect to that which, in the life of faith, was right or wrong, allowable or not allowable, and to act accordingly; and consequently, in particular, to raise themselves above the adiaphora as such, without prejudice and ethical narrowness. It is therefore evident that the ἀσθένεια τῇ πίστει carries with it defectiveness of moral γνῶσις, but this does not justify the explaining of πίστις as equivalent to γνῶσις (Grotius and others), or as equivalent to doctrine believed (Beza, Calvin).

προσλαμβάνεσθε] take to you, namely, to the intercourse of Christian brotherly fellowship. The opposite would be an ἐκκλεῖσαι θέλειν (comp. Gal_4:17), whereby they, instead of being attracted, might be forced to separation. So in substance, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, Rückert, de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Hofmann, etc. But others take it as: interest yourselves in him, of furthering, helpful support (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom), which, however, προσλαμβάνεσθαι τινα does not mean. Act_28:2 is appealed to, where, however, προσλ. is to take to oneself,a meaning which is here also required by προσελαβετο, Rom_14:3, as well as by Rom_15:7, comp. also Rom_11:15.

μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογ.] not to judgings of thoughts. διακρίσεις διαλογ. is a result, which in the case of the enjoined προσλαμβ. must not be come to, so that thus μὴ εἰς διακρ. διαλ. contains a negative more precise definition of προσλαμβάνεσθε, in the sense, namely: not in such a manner that the προσλαμβάνεσθαι, which you bestow on the weak, issues in judgments passed on the thoughts. Those persons formed their ideas under the influence of conscience; such scruples should be indulgently treated by the stronger, and criticisms passing judgments on them should not be instituted, whereby the προσλαμβάνεσθαι would be abused. Thus διάκρισις, dijudicatio, retains its usual signification (Heb_5:4; 1Co_12:10; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 765 A, xi. p. 937 B; Lucian, Herm. 69); and διαλογισμός likewise (Mat_15:19; Mar_7:21; Luk_9:46, et al.; Rom_1:21; 1Co_3:20). Nothing is to be supplied, but εἰς is simply to be taken in the sense of the result (as just previously εἰς ἐπιθ., Rom_13:14), not even as usque ad (Reiche). Substantially in agreement with this view of διακρίς. διαλογ. are Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, including Köllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, Fritzsche, Krehl, Tholuck, Hofmann, likewise Reiche, who, however, makes the prohibition apply to both parties, which is opposed to the text, since the exhorted subject is the church, in contradistinction to its weak members, while the weak alone are the object of the exhortation. Augustine aptly, Propos. 78: non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur. Others take διακρίσεις as doubts, which are not to be excited in the thoughts of the weak. So Luther, Bengel, Cramer, Ernesti, Morus, Böhme, Ammon, Flatt, Klee, Olshausen, Philippi, Umbreit. But διάκρισις never means doubt, and therefore is not to be explained with Ewald, who takes the words as an addition by way of exclamation: may it not come from doubts to thoughts! may such an one not become uncertain in his conscience! Following the Vulgate, Beza, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Toletus, Estius, Glöckler, and others, διάκρ. has also been explained as dispute, which is not unfrequently its meaning in the classics (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 768 A; Polybius, xviii. 11. 3). But dispute concerning thoughts would be at least far from clearly expressed by the mere genitive (instead of περὶ διαλογ.); and the notion disceptatio [ζήτησις, συζήτησις] is nowhere denoted in the N. T. by ΔΙΆΚΡΙΣΙς. Rückert takes it as separation: But be on your guard lest the consequence thereof may possibly be this, that thoughts and sentiments are severed, become more abruptly parted. Διάκρισις may certainly bear this meaning (Job_37:16; Plato, Phil. p. 32 A); but in that case the article must have stood before διαλογ., and the climactic sense (more abruptly) would be gratuitously imported.

Rom_14:1-12. Summons to brotherliness towards the weak ones (Rom_14:1). First point of difference between the two parties, and encouragement in relation to it (Rom_14:2-4). Second point of difference, and encouragement in relation to it (Rom_14:5). The right point of view for both in their differences (Rom_14:6), and reason assigned for it (Rom_14:7-9); reproof and disallowance of the opposite conduct (Rom_14:10-12).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:1 . τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα : as Godet points out, the part. as opposed to ἀσθενῆ , denotes one who is for the time feeble, but who may become strong. τῇ πίστει : in respect of faith, i.e. in Paul’s sense of the word in respect of his saving reliance on Christ and all that it involves: see above. One is weak in respect of faith who does not understand that salvation is of faith from first to last, and that faith is secured by its own entireness and intensity, not by a timorous scrupulosity of conscience. προσλαμβάνεσθαι is often used of God’s gracious acceptance of men, but also of men welcoming other men to their society and friendship, 2Ma 8:1 ; 2Ma 10:15 . μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν : not with a view to deciding (or passing sentence on) his doubts. The διαλογισμοί are the movements of thought in the weak man, whose anxious mind will not be at peace; no censure of any kind is implied by the word. The strong, who welcome him to the fellowship of the Church, are to do so unreservedly, not with the purpose of judging and ruling his mind by their own. For διάκρισεις see 1Co 12:10 , Heb 5:14 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap.

14:1-15:13.] On the conduct to be pursued towards weak and scrupulous brethren. There is some doubt who the ἀσθενοῦντες τῇ πίστει were, of whom the Apostle here treats; whether they were ascetics, or Judaizers. Some habits mentioned, as e.g. the abstinence from all meats, and from wine, seem to indicate the former: whereas the observation of days, and the use of such expressions as κοινόν [ver. 14], and again the argument of ch. 15:7-13, as plainly point to the latter. The difficulty may be solved by a proper combination of the two views. The over-scrupulous Jew became an ascetic by compulsion. He was afraid of pollution by eating meats sacrificed or wine poured to idols: or even by being brought into contact, in foreign countries, with casual and undiscoverable uncleanness, which in his own land he knew the articles offered for food would be sure not to have incurred. He therefore abstained from all prepared food, and confined himself to that which he could trace from natural growth to his own use. We have examples of this in Daniel (Dan_1), Tobit (Tob. 1:10, 11), [and in] some Jewish priests mentioned by Josephus, Life, § 3, who having been sent prisoners to Rome, οὐκ ἐξελάθοντο τῆς εἰς τὸ θεῖον εὐσεβείας, διετρέφοντο δὲ σύκοις καὶ καρύοις. And Tholuck refers to the Mishna as containing precepts to this effect. All difficulty then is removed, by supposing that of these over-scrupulous Jews some had become converts to the gospel, and with neither the obstinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of ascetics (for these are not hinted at here), but in weakness of faith, and the scruples of an over-tender conscience, retained their habits of abstinence and observation of days. On this account the Apostle characterizes and treats them mildly: not with the severity which he employs towards the Colossian Judaizing ascetics and those mentioned in 1Ti 4:1 ff.

The question treated in 1Co_8 was somewhat different: there it was, concerning meat actually offered to an idol. In 1Co 10:25-27, he touches the same question as here, and decides against the stricter view. See the whole matter discussed in Tholuck’s Comm. in loc., De Wette’s Handbuch, and Stuart’s Introd. to this chap. in his commentary.

1-12.] Exhortation to mutual forbearances, enforced by the axiom, that every man must serve God according to his own sincere persuasion.

1.] The general duty of a reconciling and uncontroversial spirit towards the weak in faith. The δέ binds this on to the general exhortations to mutual charity in ch. 13: q. d. ‘in the particular case of the weak in faith,’ &c.: but also implies a contrast, which seems to be, in allusion to the Christian perfection enjoined in the preceding verses,—‘but do not let your own realization of your state as children of light make you intolerant of short-coming and infirmity in others.’

ἀσθ., see reff.: the particular weakness consisted in a want of broad and independent principle, and a consequent bondage to prejudices.

πίστις therefore is used in a general sense, to indicate the moral soundness conferred by faith,—the whole character of the Christian’s conscience and practice, resting on faith. τῇ, better the faith, than ‘his faith:’ ‘weak in his (subj.) faith’ would be opposed to ‘strong in his (subj.) faith, ‘his faith,’ remaining in substance the same: whereas here the (subj.) faith itself is weak, and ‘weak in the faith’ = holding the faith imperfectly, i.e. not being able to receive the faith in its strength, so as to be above such prejudices.

προσλαμβ.] ‘give him your hand,’ as Syr. (Thol.): ‘count him one of you:’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him.

μὴ εἰς] but not with a view to: ‘do not adopt him as a brother, in order then to begin’ …

διακρίς. διαλ.] discernments of thoughts, lit.: i.e. disputes in order to settle the points on which he has scruples.’ In both the reff., διάκρισις has the meaning of ‘discernment of,’ ‘the power of distinguishing between.’ And διαλογισμοί in the N. T. implies (ordinarily in a bad sense), ‘thoughts:’ what kind of thoughts, the context must determine. Here, evidently, those scruples in him, in which his weakness consists,—and those more enlightened views in you, by which you would fain remove his scruples. Do not let your association of him among you be with a view to settle these disputes. The above ordinary meanings of the words seem to satisfy the sense, and to agree better with εἰς than ‘ad altercationes disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ad certamina cogitationum,’ as Estius:—and are adopted by most of the ancient and modern Commentators.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE SCRUPULOUS

14:1-15:13. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular practices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples; nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5).

Every one should make up his own mind. These things are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account (vv. 6-12).

We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe firmly that nothing is harmful in itself, but it becomes so to the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God’s work in a brother’s soul. Far better abstain from flesh and wine altogether (vv. 13-21).

Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur guilt; for it is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23).

This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the community. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. We should not seek our own good, but that of others; following the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures; those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement comes, grant you all—weak and strong, Jew and Gentile—to be of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (15:1-7).

For Christ has received you all alike. To both Jew and Gentile He has a special mission. To the Jews to exhibit God’s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13).

14:1-15:13. The Apostle now passes on to a further point; the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been condemning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs more openly the ‘strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing the error of the ‘weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic of the moral teaching of the Epistle—the freedom of Christian faith, the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting.

Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v.15) refers to ver. 14:10, and Origen (Comm. in Rom. x.43, Lomm. vii. p. 453) to ver. 23. Of Marcion’s use of the rest of the chapter we know nothing. On chaps. 15, 16, see Introduction, § 9.

1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει: cf. Rom 4:19; 1Co 8:7, 1Co 8:9, 1Co 8:10, 1Co 8:11; 1Co 9:22. ‘Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.

προσλαμβάνεσθε, ‘receive into full Christian intercourse and fellowship.’ The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping man: Psa_26 (27) 10 ὁ πατήρ μου καὶ ἡ μήτηρ μου ἐγκατέλιπόν με, ὁ δὲ κύριος προσελάβετό με: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. Rom. 49:6 ἐν ἀγάπῃ προσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὁ δεσπότης. But (2) it is also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companionship: 2 Macc. 8:1 τοὺς μεμενηκότας ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαισμῷ προσλαβόμενοι συνήγαγον εἰς ἑξακισχιλίους. These two uses are combined in 15:7 ‘All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’

μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, ‘but not to pass judgements on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian community, but do not let them find that they have been merely received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous thoughts are perpetually being condemned. διακρίσεις, from διακρίνω to ‘judge,’ ‘decide,’ ‘distinguish,’ means the expression of judgements or opinions, as Heb 5:14 ‘judgement of good or evil,’ 1Co 12:10 ‘judgement or discernment of spirits.’ διαλογισμῶν means ‘thoughts,’ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, hesitation (Luk 24:38), disputes (Php 2:14; 1Ti 2:8), or generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpretation of διακρίσεις is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘not so as to raise doubts in his mind,’ or (with Gif.) ‘not unto discussions of doubts’; but neither interpretation can be so well supported.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Twenty-eighth passage (14:1-15:13). Exhortation relative to a particular Difference of View in the Church of Rome.

The following passage is a practical application of the law of love expounded, chaps. 12 and 13. It is an immediate illustration of the selfsacrifice which Paul has just been requiring. This passage, from its connection with a local circumstance, is at the same time the first step of return from the treatise to the letter form; it is, consequently, the transition to the epistolary conclusion of the entire writing. Thus it is that everything is organically bound together in the compositions of the apostle.

What was the subject of the difference of view to which the instruction following refers? Rom 14:2 proves that a certain number of Christians at Rome thought they should abstain from the use of meats and of wine; and it is probable, from Rom 14:5-6, that the same men joined to this abstinence the scrupulous observance of certain days which seemed to them more holy than others. This party does not appear to have been considerable or influential; and Paul, far from treating it as he treated those who corrupted the pure gospel in Galatia, at Corinth, or at Colosse, seems rather inclined to take it under his protection as against the rest of the church. The subject is one on which somewhat divergent views have been expressed. It is difficult to explain the principle which led these people to act thus.

Eichhorn regarded the weak as former Gentiles, who had belonged previously to a school of philosophy with an ascetic tendency, the Neo-Pythagoreans, for example. They imported into the gospel, according to him, certain principles pertaining to their former philosophy.

This opinion is now generally rejected. 1st. There are manifest indications of the Jewish origin of this party. Thus Rom 14:5-6 appear to prove that these same men observed the Jewish feast days, like the heretics of Colosse (see the exegesis). Besides, if the passage, Rom 15:1-13, still forms part of this section, as appears to us unquestionable, it follows that we have to do with a Judeo-Christian party. For this whole passage closes with the celebration of the union of Christians of both origins in one and the same salvation. 2d. Such men would not have taken the modest and timid attitude at Rome which seems to have been that of the weak. On the ground of their pretended superiority, either in holiness or in culture, they would much rather have affected haughty airs in relation to the rest of the church.

Origen and Chrysostom regarded these people as Christians of Jewish origin, and ascribe their kind of life to their attachment to the Mosaic law. But the law did not forbid the eating of flesh, except that of certain (unclean) animals, nor the use of wine, except to certain persons and in certain particular cases. It would therefore be difficult to explain how they could have come by the way of the Levitical ordinances to the principle of entire abstinence.

This reflection and comparison with the passage, 1 Corinthians 8-10., have led many commentators (Clem. of Alex., Flatt, Neand., Philip., etc.) to explain the abstinence of the weak by the fear they felt of unwittingly eating flesh and drinking wines which had been offered to idols. Rather than run such a risk, they preferred to dispense with them altogether. But it should have been easy to find means of avoiding this danger, at least in private meals; and it would be hard to understand how, if the ideas of these people had been the same as those of their scrupulous brethren in the church of Corinth, Paul should not give them any of those explanations which he had given to the latter, and should content himself with striving to preserve peace within the church of Rome. It appears to us very doubtful, besides, whether the weak at Corinth were of Jewish origin. The more we have examined the question, the more have we been led to regard them rather as formerly Gentiles. Finally, the text of Rom 14:14 is incompatible with this opinion. Paul says: “I am persuaded in the Lord that there is nothing unclean of itself.” These words: of itself, prove that the pollution appeared to the weak as attaching to the very nature of the meats, and not merely contracted by accident.

Baur, in his Apostel Paulus (I. p. 361 et seq.), has attempted to connect the party of the weak with the Ebionites, who, according to the description given by Epiphanius, abstained from all animal food, or even from food prepared with animal matter. He also cites the Clementine Homilies (dating from Rome in the last third of the second century), in which the Apostle Peter thus describes his mode of life: “I use only bread and oil and a little pulse,” and where it is taught that the use of flesh is contrary to nature, and of diabolical origin. He cites also the saying of Hegesippus regarding James the brother of our Lord: “He ate nothing ἔμφυχον (animated).” As to wine, this critic refers to the fact that according to Epiphanius, the most austere of the Ebionites celebrated the Eucharist only with unleavened bread and water; which seems to prove that they abstained wholly from wine.

Ritschl (Enst. der altkath. Kirche, 2d ed. p. 184 et seq.) has given out a somewhat different hypothesis, which has been adopted by many moderns (Mey., Mang., etc.). Our party of the weak at Rome was composed, it is said, of former Essenes. According to this critic, the fundamental idea of the Essene order was to realize a permanent priestly life. Now, it is known that the priests were forbidden (Lev 10:9) to drink wine while they were officiating; the Essene must therefore have abstained from it entirely. Moreover, the priests, being required to eat only food consecrated to God, and Essenism rejecting at the same time the practice of bloody sacrifices, it followed that they could eat no flesh. If, therefore, such men had been sold as prisoners, and carried to Rome as the result of previous wars, then set free and converted to the gospel, they might have carried with them into the church their former mode of life as superior in holiness to that of ordinary Christians. An analogous origin ought probably to be assigned to the sect which some years later troubled the church of Colosse. In general, it is clear that a certain ascetic dualism was in the air at this period. And this was the common source of all the different tendencies which we have mentioned.

Only the question arises—(1) Whether, supposing the weak had belonged to one of these parties, Paul could have attached so little importance to the question considered in itself (comp. his polemic in the Epistle to the Colossians); and (2) whether the attitude of such Christians would have been so modest as the following passage supposes?

Perhaps there is a simpler way of explaining the origin of such ideas. We must go back even beyond the law. According to the narrative of Genesis, animal food was not originally allowed to man (Gen 1:29). It was not till after the deluge that it was expressly authorized (Rom 9:3). The invention of wine dates also from this latter epoch, and the abuse of this drink was immediately connected with its discovery. It is easy to understand how such biblical precedents might have taken hold of serious readers of the O. T., and led them to the abstinence of which our text speaks. In this conduct no Christian principle was seriously compromised. It was simply an attempt to return to the primitive regimen, which easily presented itself to the mind as the most normal. And thus is explained why the apostle does not even touch the root of the question, and treats it solely on the side on which it concerns the maintenance of harmony between the members of the church.

To finish at once the exposition of our view, we shall add that, as appears to us, it was in the love-feasts that the difference broke out and gave rise to certain painful manifestations to which the apostle desired to put an end. We think we can give the proof of this as we study chap. 14.

It has been sometimes thought that in the first part of this chapter, Rom 14:1-12, the apostle was addressing the weak, with the view of checking their unjust judgments upon the strong; and in the second, Rom 14:13-23, the strong, to call them to the exercise of charity toward the weak. This view does not seem to me exact, at least as to the first part. Rather Paul begins by addressing both in this part, in order to point out to them the duty of mutual toleration; then he turns specially to the strong in the second part, to remind them of the considerate bearing which love claims of them toward the weak.

Vv. 1, 2. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, yet not to enter into discussions of opinions. One hath faith to eat all things; but another, who is weak, eateth herbs.”

The participle ἀσθενῶν, being weak, is not altogether synonymous with the adjective ἀσθενής, weak; it denotes one whose faith falters (becomes weak) at a given moment and in a special case. This expression better spares the sensibilities of those here spoken of. The imperative προσλαμβάνεσθε, receive, addressed to the whole church, evidently assumes that those who are recommended to this favorable reception form only a very weak minority at Rome. The Greek expression signifies to take to oneself with tenderness; comp. Rom 15:7 and Joh 14:3, where it is applied to Christ’s conduct in relation to believers.

The last words of the verse have been explained in a multitude of ways. Luther, Olsh.: “but not so as to excite doubts (διακρίσεις) in your neighbor’s inward thoughts (διαλογισμῶν).” There are two reasons opposed to this meaning; διάκρισις does not signify doubt, and διαλογισμός cannot mean simply thought. The word always denotes in the N. T. the activity of the understanding in the service of evil; comp. Luk 2:35; Luk 5:22; 1Co 3:20; and in our Epistle, Rom 1:21.

Beza, Vulgate: “but not to dispute with them (διακρίσεις) regarding the ideas which they form of things (διαλογισμῶν).” But διαλογισμός does not denote an idea; it is a reasoning.

Rückert: “but not to reach a still profounder separation of opinions.” But how could it be thought that this would be the result of the reception recommended; and how should the idea: still profounder, have been omitted by the apostle?

Meyer: “but not so as to criticise the thoughts (of your weak brethren).” This meaning would require the singular διάκρισις, criticism, and it does not harmonize with the term διαλογισμός, which applies rather to the reasonings of a proud wisdom than to pious scruples.

The following is the meaning which alone seems to me natural: “but not to get by this very reception into debates (διακρίσεις), which would terminate in the end only in vain reasonings (διαλογισμοί).” This meaning suits the two substantives used, as well as the plural form of both. After this general recommendation the apostle formulates the point of the question.

Vv. 1-12.

The first three verses are a sort of heading, in which the apostle expounds the ground of difference, and gives the solution of it provisionally.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter XIV

Contents

As in chapter 12, Paul had insisted principally upon moral and religious duties, and in Rom_13:1-14., On those of a political character, he here treats particularly of the duties of church members towards each other, in relation to matters not binding on the conscience. There are two points specially presented: the first is the manner in which scrupulous Christians, who make conscience of matters of indifference, are to be treated, Rom_14:1-12; and the second, the manner in which those who are strong in faith should use their christian liberty, Rom_14:13-23.

Romans 14:1-23

Analysis

Scrupulous Christians, whose consciences are weak, are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned, Rom_14:1. This direction the apostle enforces in reference to those who were scrupulous as to eating particular kinds of food, and the propriety of neglecting the sacred days appointed in the law of Moses. Such persons are not to be condemned

1. Because this weakness is not inconsistent with piety; notwithstanding their doubts on these points, God has received them, Rom_14:3.

2. Because one Christian has no right to judge another, (except where Christ has expressly authorized it, and given him the rule of judgment;) to his own master he stands or falls, Rom_14:4.

3. Because such harsh treatment is unnecessary; God can and will preserve such persons, notwithstanding their feebleness, Rom_14:4.

4. Because they act religiously, or out of regard to God, in this matter; and, therefore, live according to the great Christian principle, that no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself, but whether he lives or dies, belongs to God, Rom_14:6-9. On these grounds we should abstain from condemning or treating contemptuously our weaker brethren, remembering that we are all to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, Rom_14:10-13.

As to the use of Christian liberty, the apostle teaches that it is not to be given up or denied; that is, we are not to make things sinful which are in themselves indifferent, Rom_14:14. But it does not follow, that because a thing is not wrong in itself, it is right for us to indulge in it. Our liberty is to be asserted; but it is to be exercised in such a way as not to injure others. We must not put a stumbling block in our brothers way, Rom_14:12. This consideration of others, in the use of our liberty, is enforced

1. From the great law of love. It is inconsistent with Christian charity, for our own gratification, to injure a brother for whom Christ died, Rom_14:15.

2. From a regard to the honor of religion. We must not cause that which is good to be evil spoken of, Rom_14:16.

3. From the consideration that religion does not consist in such things, Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18.

4. Because we are bound to promote the peace and edification of the church, Rom_14:19.

5. Though the things in question may be in themselves indifferent, it is morally wrong to indulge in them to the injury of others, Rom_14:20, Rom_14:21.

6. The course enjoined by the apostle requires no concession of principle, or adoption of error.

We can retain our full belief of the indifference of things which God has not pronounced sinful; but those who have not our faith, cannot act upon it, and therefore should not be encouraged so to do, Rom_14:22, Rom_14:23.

Commentary

Rom_14:1

Him that is weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations. This verse contains the general direction that weak and scrupulous brethren are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned. Who these weak brethren were, and what was the nature of their scruples, is matter of doubt. Some say they were Jewish converts, who held to the continued obligation of the ceremonial law. But to this it is objected, that they abstained from all flesh (Rom_14:2), and refused to drink wine (Rom_14:21); things not prohibited in the law of Moses. Others think they were persons who scrupled about the use of such flesh only as had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and of the wine employed in libation to false gods. But for this limitation there is no ground in the context. Eichhorn, Einleitung 3. p. 222, supposes that they were the advocates, of Gentile birth, of the ascetic school of the new Pythagorean philosophy, which had begun to prevail among the heathen, and probably to a certain extent among the Jews. But it is plain that they held to the continued authority of the Jewish law, which converts from among the heathen would not be likely to do. The most probable opinion is, that they were a scrupulous class of Jewish Christians; perhaps of the school of the Essenes, who were more strict and abstemious than the Mosaic ceremonial required. Asceticism, as a form of self-righteousness and will-worship, was one of the earliest, most extensive and persistent heresies in the church. But there is nothing inconsistent with the assumption that the weak brethren here spoken of were scrupulous Jewish Christians. Josephus says, that some of the Jews at Rome lived on fruits exclusively, from fear of eating something unclean. Weak in faith, i.e. weak as to faith (πίστει). Faith here means, persuasion of the truth; a man may have a strong persuasion as to certain truths, and a very weak one as to others. Some of the early Christians were, no doubt, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and yet felt great doubts whether the distinction between clean and unclean meats was entirely done away. This was certainly a great defect of Christian character, and arose from the want of an intelligent and firm conviction of the gratuitous nature of justification, and of the spirituality of the gospel. Since, however, this weakness was not inconsistent with sincere devotion to Christ, such persons were to be received. The word (προσλαμβάνομαι) rendered receive, has the general signification, to take to oneself; and this is its meaning here: Him that is weak in faith, take to yourselves as a Christian brother, treat him kindly; see Act_28:2; Rom_15:7; Phm_1:15, Phm_1:17.

There is much more doubt as to the meaning of the words (μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν) translated not to doubtful disputations. The former of the two important words of this clause means, the faculty of discrimination, 1Co_12:10; the act of discerning, Heb_5:14, and then, dijudication, judgment. It is said also to signify doubt or inward conflict; see the use of the verb in Rom_4:20. It is taken in this sense in our version, not to the doubtfulness of disputes, not for the purpose of doubtful disputation. That is, not so as to give rise to disputes on doubtful matters. Luther (und verwirret die Gewissen nicht,) and many others take διακρίσεις in the sense of doubt, and refer the διαλογισμοί to the weak brethren: Not so as to awaken doubts of thought, i.e. scruples. Although the verb διακρίνω, in the passive, often means to hesitate or doubt, the noun διακρίσις; is not used in that sense, either in the classics or in the New Testament. It is therefore better to take the word in its ordinary sense, which gives a meaning to the passage suited to the context, not to the judging of thoughts; i.e. not presuming to sit in judgment on the opinions of your brethren. Grotius: Non sumentes vobis dijudicandas ipsorum cogitationes. This is the injunction which is enforced in the following verses.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now he showeth how we ought to behave ourselves toward our brethren in matters and things indifferent, offending in the use of them, not of malices or damnable superstition, but for lack of knowledge of the benefit of Christ. And thus he teacheth that they are to be instructed gently and patiently, and so that we apply ourselves to their ignorance in such matters according to the rule of charity.

To make him by your doubtful and uncertain disputations go away more in doubt than he came, or start back with a troubled conscience.

Do not for a matter or thing that is indifferent, and such as you may do or not do, shun his company, but take him to you.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER XIV.

In things indifferent, Christians should not condemn each

other, 1.

Particularly with respect to different kinds of food, 2-4.

And the observation of certain days, 5, 6.

None of us should live unto himself, but unto Christ, who lived

and died for us, 7-9.

We must not judge each other; for all judgment belongs to God,

10-13.

We should not do any thing by which a weak brother may be

stumbled or grieved; lest we destroy him for whom Christ died,

14-16.

The kingdom of God does not consist in outward things, 17, 18.

Christians should endeavour to cultivate peace and brotherly

affection, and rather deny themselves of certain privileges

than be the means of stumbling a weak brother, 19-21.

The necessity of doing all in the spirit of faith, 22, 23.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIV.

It seems very likely, from this and the following chapter, that there were considerable misunderstandings between the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome, relative to certain customs which were sacredly observed by the one and disregarded by the other. The principal subject of dispute was concerning meats and days. The converted Jew, retaining a veneration for the law of Moses, abstained from certain meats, and was observant of certain days; while the converted Gentile, understanding that the Christian religion laid him under no obligations to such ceremonial points, had no regard to either. It appears, farther, that mutual censures and uncharitable judgments prevailed among them, and that brotherly love and mutual forbearance did not generally prevail. The apostle, in this part of his epistle, exhorts that in such things, not essential to religion, and in which both parties, in their different way of thinking, might have an honest meaning, and serious regard to God, difference of sentiments might not hinder Christian fellowship and love; but that they would mutually forbear each other, make candid allowance, and especially not carry their Gospel liberty so far as to prejudice a weak brother, a Jewish Christian, against the Gospel itself, and tempt him to renounce Christianity. His rules and exhortations are still of great use, and happy would the Christian world be if they were more generally practised. See Dr. Taylor, who farther remarks, that it is probable St. Paul learned all these particulars from Aquila and Priscilla, who were lately come from Rome, Ac 18:2, Ac 18:3, and with whom the apostle was familiar for a considerable time. This is very likely, as there is no evidence that he had any other intercourse with the Church at Rome.

Verse 1. Him that is weak in the faith] By this the apostle most evidently means the converted Jew, who must indeed be weak in the faith, if he considered this distinction of meats and days essential to his salvation. See Clarke on Ro 14:21.

Receive ye] Associate with him; receive him into your religious fellowship; but when there, let all religious altercations be avoided.

Not to doubtful disputations.] Μη εις διακρισεις δια λογισμων. These words have been variously translated and understood. Dr. Whitby thinks the sense of them to be this; Not discriminating them by their inward thoughts. Do not reject any from your Christian communion because of their particular sentiments on things which are in themselves indifferent. Do not curiously inquire into their religious scruples, nor condemn them on that account. Entertain a brother of this kind rather with what may profit his soul, than with curious disquisitions on speculative points of doctrine. A good lesson for modern Christians in general.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1. Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church, — that they who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own strength to sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed.

Now, as man’s disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how they who thus vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and he prescribes this as the best mode, — that they who are strong should spend their labor in assisting the weak, and that they who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant. For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it the part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the already confirmed, is this, — that the ampler the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbors.

Not for the debatings of questions. This is a defective sentence, as the word which is necessary to complete the sense is wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing else than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he now handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith.

He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established, or which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(1) Weak in the faith . . .—The presence of a single strong master-motive is apt to silence petty scruples. Where the “eye is single”—where all the powers and faculties of the man are concentrated upon one object, and that object the highest that can engage human thought or affection—there will naturally be a certain largeness of view. The opposite of this is to be “weak in the faith.” There may be a sincere desire to lead a religious life, and yet the mind is taken up with petty details, each of which is painfully judged by itself, and not by reference to a central principle.

Receive ye.—Take to yourselves, stretch out the hand of friendship to him.

Doubtful disputations.—The marginal rendering is more exact, “to judge his doubtful thoughts,” or “to criticise his scruples.” The strong are to deal tenderly with the weak, and not engage them in casuistical discussions.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Him that is weak in the faith,.... This address is made to the stronger and more knowing Christians among the Romans, how to behave towards those that were inferior in light and knowledge to them, with regard to things of a ritual and ceremonial kind: and by "him that is weak in the faith", is meant, either one that is weak in the exercise of the grace of faith, who has but a glimmering sight of Christ; who comes to him in a very feeble and trembling manner; who believes his ability to save him, but hesitates about his willingness; who casts himself with a peradventure on him; and who is attended with many misgivings of heart, faintings of spirit, and fluctuation of mind, about his interest in him: or one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: or rather one that is weak in his knowledge of that branch of the doctrine of faith, which concerns Christian liberty; and that part of it particularly, which respects freedom from the ceremonial law: it designs one, and chiefly a Jew, who though a believer in Christ, and an embracer of the other truths of the Gospel, yet had but very little knowledge of Gospel liberty; but though that believers were to observe all the rituals of the Mosaic dispensation, not knowing that they were abolished by Christ. The phrase is Jewish; it is (m) said,

"what is the meaning of the phrase, in Rephidim, Exo 17:1 it signifies such as are of weak hands; as if it had been said, because the Israelites were , "weak in their faith".''

The advice the apostle gives, in reference to such a person, is to

receive him; not only into their affections, and love him equally, being a believer in Christ, as one of the same sentiments with them, only in this matter, but also into church fellowship with them. The Syriac version reads it, , "give him the hand": in token of communion, a form used in admission of members. The Gentiles were apt to boast against, and look with some contempt upon the Jews, and were ready to object to their communion, because of their want of light and knowledge in these matters; but this was no bar of communion, nor ought a person to be rejected on account of his weakness, either in the grace, or in the doctrine of faith, when it appears he has the true grace of God; and much less on account of his weakness in that branch of it, concerning Christian liberty; for since Christ does not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, nor despise the day of small things, churches should not: it may also intend a receiving of such into intimate conversation, at their private meetings and conferences; taking particular notice of them; giving them proper instructions; praying with them and for them; endeavouring to build them up in their most holy faith, and to bring them into the knowledge of those things they are weak in; bearing their weaknesses patiently, and bearing with them in great tenderness: thus such should be received,

but not to doubtful disputations; to vain jangling and perverse disputings, such as will rather perplex than inform them; and will leave their minds doubtful and in suspense, and do them more harm than good.

(m) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 77. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Ver. 1. Him that is weak, &c.] That is, not thoroughly persuaded of all things pertaining to Christian liberty about things indifferent.

Receive] Affectu charitatis, put him into your bosoms, bear with his weaknesses, &c. Bucer rejected none, though different in some opinions, in whom he found aliquid Christi, anything of Christ, whose weaklings are to be handled with all tenderness. (Haymo.)

But not to doubtful] Make him not question sick, 1Ti 6:4. Wring not men’s consciences, you may hap to break the wards if you do.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Him that is weak - The design here is to induce Christians to receive to their fellowship those who had scruples about the propriety of certain things, or that might have special prejudices and feelings as the result of education or former habits of belief. The apostle, therefore, begins by admitting that such an one may be “weak,” that is, not fully established, or not with so clear and enlarged views about Christian liberty others might have.

In the faith - In believing. This does not refer to “saving faith” in Christ, for he might have that; but to belief in regard “to the things which the apostle specifies,” or which would come into controversy. Young converts have often a special delicacy or sensitiveness about the lawfulness of many things in relation to which older Christians may be more fully established. To produce peace, there must be kindness, tenderness, and faithful teaching; not denunciation, or harshness, on one side or the other.

Receive ye - Admit to your society or fellowship: receive him kindly, not meet with a cold and harsh repulse; compare Rom 15:7.

Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, “by the natural reaction of such a course,” confirming him in his doubts. Or, “do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc.” (Stuart.) The “leading” idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to overcome his scruples. In questions which now occur about modes of “dress,” about “measures” and means of promoting revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by far the wisest course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to induce him to think as we do. Greek, “Unto doubts or fluctuations of opinions or reasonings.” Various senses have been given to the words, but the above probably expresses the true meaning.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Not in disputes about thoughts.[1] That is, without blaming or condemning the thoughts, and reasonings (as it appears by the Greek) of those new converts, who had been Jews, and who were still of this opinion, that they ought to abstain from meats forbidden by the Jewish law, and observe the Jewish festival days. You must charitably bear with the weakness of such converts. (Witham) --- Be tender with him who is weak in faith; enter not into disputes with him, which only serve to extinguish charity, and create inveterate prejudices.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Non in disceptationibus cogitationum, Greek: me eis diakriseis dialogismon. Non in condemnationem rationum vel cogitationum.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

In this chapter and part of the next, the apostle treats of some lesser matters of religion, about which there were great contentions in the church of Rome. Some of the Jews, though they embraced the gospel, did stiffly adhere still to the Mosaical ceremonies; and though a difference in meats and days should be conscientiously observed, yet they were ready to censure those that were contrary-minded, as profane persons, and contemners of the law of God. On the other side, the believing Gentiles, being better instructed about their Christiall liberty, when they saw the Jews insisting upon such things as these, that had never any real goodness in them, and were now abrogated by Christ, they were ready to despise them as ignorant and superstitious, and to deny communion with them. The apostle therefore doth seasonably endeavour to arbitrate this matter, and make peace amongst them.

Him that is weak in the faith; that is, wavering and unsettled in some lesser points of faith, particularly in the doctrine of Christian liberty, and freedom from the ceremonial law: he means, the scrupulous and erroneous Judaizer, though yet, in proportion, it may be applied to other scrupulous and doubting Christians.

Receive ye; or, receive him to you, take him into your bosoms, admit him to communion with you, bear with his weakness, better instruct him with the spirit of meekness: see Rom 15:1; Phi 3:15,16. Bucer received all, though differing from him in some opinions, in whom he found, aliquid Christi, any thing of Christ.

But not to doubtful disputations: q.d. Do not entertain him with disputes and vain janglings, which will not edify, but perplex and prejudice him. Do not make him question sick, as it is in 1Ti 6:4. This passage may be expounded by Tit 3:9. The marginal reading would make this to be the sense, that a scrupulous Christian should be received unto communion; yet not so as to encourage him to judge and condemn the thoughts of those that differ from him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Duty of Sympathy and Toleration

In chapter Rom_13:12 St. Paul urged his readers, by their expectation of Christ's coming, to avoid the licence and immorality of the heathen. Now he turns to the opposite extreme, and deals with the ascetic scrupulousness of certain Christians.

Under the Jewish Law there was a distinction between clean and unclean meats. This distinction, which perpetuated the separation between Jew and Gentile, Christ abolished (Mar_7:19 RV), as was afterwards revealed to Peter (Act_10:28), and decided by the Council of Jerusalem (Act_15:28.) The Council, however, directed the Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia to abstain from meat which had been offered to idols, or which had not been killed in the Jewish manner, out of consideration for the feelings of the Jewish Christians and to preserve unity. Afterwards the question arose at Corinth how far the Gentile Christians could join with their heathen acquaintances in meals when the meat had been offered to idols. St. Paul decided that as the meat was God's gift it might be eaten, but that when it was avowedly connected with idolatrous worship, it should be abstained from, for the sake of the consciences of those who thought it wrong to eat such meat.

It would seem that at Rome a minority of the Christians scrupled to partake of meat or wine in any form. They were probably Jewish Christians, for such ascetic practices were held by certain religious Jews. St. Paul did not approve of their scruples. He called such Christians 'weak in faith,' i.e. without that strong and clear conviction of Christian liberty which he held to be in accordance with the truth. But such brethren were to be welcomed and allowed to follow their convictions; and if there were any danger of wounding their consciences, the 'strong' brethren were to abstain themselves for the sake of Christian love.

Although the Apostle so urged toleration, yet, when a vital principle was at stake, he allowed no compromise: cp. 1 Corinthians 5, 1Co_11:16; 1Co_15:12.; Gal_1:8.

1-12. The 'strong' and the 'weak' are lovingly to tolerate one another, remembering that Christ is master of each, and that each will be judged by God. 13-23. It would be better that the strong should forego his right, if its exercise would injure his brother.

Paraphrase. '(1) Some Christians have not grasped the principle that acceptance by God depends upon faith alone, and are in consequence scrupulous about unessential observances. Admit them to Christian fellowship, and abstain from criticising their scruples. (2) For example, one man is confident that he may eat any kind of food, while another refrains from meat. (3) Let not him who eats meat despise the other as superstitious. And let not the other condemn him who eats as unspiritual and worldly, for God imposed no rule about food upon him. (4) It is not for you to say that what Christ allows His servants is dangerous for them: their Master will keep them safe. (5) Again, one man observes the Jewish distinctions of days, while another does not. Let each man be faithful to his own conscience, (6) and recognise that the aim of men of both opinions is to please Christ. (7, 8) For His will is our law, in this life and in the world of death, (9) as is right, seeing that He is Master in both states of existence. (10, 11) It does not befit those who must all stand before God's judgment seat, to pass judgment upon one another. (12) The account that each will have to give of himself is enough for each to think of. (13) Therefore, instead of judging one another, determine not to hinder your brother in his Christian life.(14) For while in itself no food is sinful, it is sinful to those whose consciences forbid it, (15) and therefore to insist upon your right might injure your brother, which would be a breach of love. If Christ gave up His life for your brother, can you not give up some particular food? (16) Do not bring reproach upon the truth you hold, (17) by making it seem that you regard a well-spread table as more important than spiritual graces and unity, (18) for it is the practice of such graces which makes the service of Christ approved by God and man. (19) Let it be our aim to bring about peace and the welfare of the Christian community. (20) It would be monstrous to destroy God's Church for the sake of food. To eat any particular food is not in itself wrong; but it becomes wrong if by doing so you harm your brother; (21) while it is a noble thing to give up your own right for his sake. (22) Cherish your own convictions, but do not seek to impose them upon every one else. You have the great blessing of an un-doubting conscience, be satisfied with that.

(23) and do not tempt another to eat, when the fact that he is not sure whether he is doing right condemns him; for it is always sinful for a man to do what his conscience does not approve.'

1. The faith] RV 'faith.' To doubtful disputations] RM 'for decisions of doubts.'

2. Believeth that he may] RV 'hath faith to'; i.e. has such a grasp of the gospel of Christ that he recognises the indifference of these matters.

3. Despise] cp. Mat_5:22. Hath received] i.e. into the Church.

4. God] RV 'the Lord,' i.e. Christ.

5. One day above another] The reference is, no doubt, to Jewish observances: cp. Gal_4:10; Col_2:16. The principle is that salvation does not depend upon the observance of special days and seasons. These are indifferent in themselves, although to set apart special days may be practically useful. St. Paul would probably have included in this the keeping of Sunday. But he would have said that Sunday is no different from other days, because all days should be holy, not because all days are common. The six days should approximate as far as possible to Sunday, not Sunday to the six days. Hence the inestimable value of Sunday to maintain the level of spiritual life, quite apart from the benefit of its rest. Persuaded] RV 'assured.'

6. And he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it] RV omits. Eateth] i.e. eateth flesh. Thanks] cp. Mat_15:36; Act_27:35; 1Co_10:30; 1Co_11:24; 1Ti_4:4.

9. RV 'For to this end Christ died, and lived again.' 'He who, to save them, had dwelt in both worlds, was their Master in both' (Moule).

10. RV 'But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou, again, why dost thou,' etc. All] emphatic. Christ] RV 'God.' 'It is important to notice how easily St. Paul passes from “Christ” to “God” (Sanday and Headlam).

11. From Isa_45:23. Confess] i.e. God's sovereignty.

12. Himself] emphatic.

13. Stumblingblock] cp. Mat_18:6.; 1Co_8:9.

14. By the Lord] RV 'in the Lord,' i.e. in communion with Christ. Unclean] lit. 'common': cp. Act_10:14, Act_10:28. But] RV 'save that.' 'Mistaken conscience calls for correction by better light, but never for violation. To follow conscience is, by itself, no security that we are doing what is in itself right; but to violate conscience, which is our actual view of right and wrong, is always wrong' (Moule).

17. Kingdom of God] i.e. the Messianic kingdom, expected by the Jews as an earthly kingdom, but really the reign of Christ over man, whether in grace or glory: cp. 1Co_4:20.

Righteousness] i.e. here, right dealing in relation to others. Peace] i.e. with one another. Joy] i.e. of the united Christian brotherhood. In the Holy Ghost] i.e. through His indwelling.

18. In these things] RV 'herein'; i.e. in the exercise of such a life of Christian love.

19. Edify] i.e. build up the Christian society, which is called in the next v. 'the work of God.'

20. RV 'overthrow not for meat's sake.' Pure] RV 'clean': cp. 1Co_10:23. With offence] i.e. to others.

21. Nor any thing] RV 'nor to do anything': cp. 1Co_8:13. Or is offended, or is made weak] RV omits.

22. Hast thou faith?] RV 'The faith which thou hast.' Have it to thyself] i.e. do not force it upon others; respect the scruples of the weak. Condemneth] RV 'judgeth.' Alloweth] RV 'approveth.'

23. Damned] RV 'condemned.' Faith] here = strong conviction. 'The words do not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing Christians; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a “good conscience” everything which is not done with a clear conscience is sin' (Sanday and Headlam).

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-23. F. The duty of enlightened Christians towards weak brethren. From moral duties in general of Christians towards each other and towards all the apostle now passes to such as they owe peculiarly to each other as members of a religious community, united by a common faith. He has already (Rom_12:16) admonished his readers to be "of the same mind one toward another;" but, as was remarked under that verse, this did not imply agreement of view on all subjects, such as is impossible where there are many minds. In this chapter he recognizes the impossibility, having immediately before him what was then patent, the inability of some, through prejudice or slowness of conception, to enter into views of the meaning of the gospel which to himself and the more enlightened were apparent. He by no means departs from what he says elsewhere (cf. Gal_1:6-10) about no denial of fundamental doctrine being allowable in the communion of the Church; but in matters not touching the foundation he does here inculcate a large and generous tolerance. In these, as in all other relations between men on the earth together, the all-inspiring principle of charity is to rule. Who the "weak brethren" were whose scruples he especially inculcates tolerance of in this chapter cannot be decided positively. It will he seen that they were persons who thought it their duty to abstain from animal food, and perhaps also from wine (vers. 2, 21); and there is allusion also to observance of certain days (ver. 5). The views that have been taken are as follows:

(1) That they were the same class of Jewish Christians as are spoken of in 1Co 8 as over-scrupulous about eating of things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols.

(2) That they were such as were scrupulous in avoiding unclean meats, forbidden in the Mosaic Law. (Or, as Erasmus and others suggest, views (1) and (2) may be combined)

(3) That they were ascetics.

In favour of view

(1) is the fact that the drift and tone of the exhortation is exactly the same here as in 1Co 8, with similarity also of expressions, such as o asyenwn, o esyiwn brwsiv, brwma, apoluein proskomma, skandalizein . Against it are the facts

(a) that in the chapter before us there is no allusion whatever to idol-meats, as there is throughout so markedly in 1Co 8; and

(b) that abstinence from all animal food whatever (and apparently from wine too) is spoken of in this chapter. Objection (a) has been met by saying that the ground of the scrupulosity referred to might be so well known that St. Paul did not think it necessary to mention it when he wrote to the Romans. To objection (b) it is replied that there might be some who, in order to guard against the risk of buying at the shambles, or partaking in general society of viands connected with heathen sacrifices, made a point of abstaining from meat altogether, and (it has been suggested) from wine too, which might have been used in libations. This is the view of Clement of Alexandria, Ambrosiastor, and Augustine, among the ancients.

View (2) is that of Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, among whom Chrysostom accounts for the total abstinence from meat as follows: "There were many of the Jews that believed, who, being still bound in conscience to the Law, even after believing still observed the ordinances about meats, not as yet venturing to depart from the Law; and then, in order not to be conspicuous in abstaining from swine"s flesh only, they abstained from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that their practice might seem to be rather fasting, and not observance of the Law" (so also OEcumenius and Theophylact). But this seems to be a conjecture only, and hardly a likely one. And further, it fails to account for abstinence from wine, which seems to be implied; on the part of tome at least, in ver. 21. (It may be observed, however, that this is not of necessity implied. Abstinence from meat is all that has been spoken of before, and again in ver. 23; and St. Paul may possibly mean only to say, in ver. 21, that if by abstaining from wine also he could avoid offence to a weak brother, he would willingly so abstain. Still, the natural inference is that he would not have mentioned wine had there not been some who made it a point of conscience to abstain from it)

If the weak brethren were ascetics, according to view (3), it is most probable that they were Jewish Christians who had imbibed the principles of the Essenes. These were a Jewish sect, spoken of especially by Josephus, who aimed at scrupulous observance of the Law of Moses, and strict personal purity. With this view they lived in communities under rule, partaking of the simplest fare, and some abstaining from marriage. It does not appear that they were strict vegetarians when living in community; but we are told that they might only eat such meat as had been prepared by their own members, so as to be secure against any pollution, and that, if excommunicated, they were consequently compelled to eat herbs. (For what is known of them, see Josephus, "Bell. Jud:," 2:8:2-5; "Ant.," 13:5. 9; 15:10. 4, 5; 18:1. 2, etc.; Philo, "Quod Omnis Probus Liber," see. 12., etc.; Pliny, "Hist. Nat.," 5:16, 17) It is far from unlikely that some of these would be attracted to Christianity; and this especially as some of their principles, as described by Josephus, seem to have been endorsed by Christ himself (see art. on "Essenes," in "Dict. of Christian Biog.," vol. 2. p. 202); and, if so, they would be likely to carry their prejudices with them into the Church, and, when living outside their original communities, they might abstain entirely from flesh as well as wine. Or it might be that other Jews, Essenic in principle and feeling, had sought admission into the Church. Philo, in Eusebius, "Praep. Evan.," 8. fin., and Josephus, "Vit.," 2. 3, intimate that supra-legal asceticism, under the influence of Essenic principles, was not uncommon in Judaism in their time. The latter (c. 3) speaks of certain priests, his friends, who were so God-fearing that they subsisted on figs and nuts, and (c. 2) of one Banns, who had been his master, who ate no food but vegetables. What is still more to our purpose is that we find evidence of pious ascetics of the same type subsequently among Christians. Origen ("Contra Cels.," 5:49) speaks of some as living in his time; and even the apostle St. Matthew, and James the Lord"s brother, were afterwards credited with a corresponding mode of life. Clement of Alexandria ("Paedag." 2:1) says of the former, "Matthew the apostle partook of seeds and acorns and herbs, without flesh." Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (2:23), says of the latter that "he drank not wine or strong drinks, nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath." It is to be observed that abstinence from ointments was one of the practices of the Essenes (Josephus, "Bell. Jud:," 8:2:3). Augustine ("Ad Faust.," 22:3) transmits the same tradition as to the abstinence of James from flesh and wine. Whatever foundation them might be for these traditions, they at any rate show that in the second century, when Hegesippus wrote, abstinence such as is intimated in this chapter was regarded as a mark of superior sanctity by some Christians. Farther, in the "Apostolical Canons" (Canon 51), Christians who abstained from marriage, or flesh, or wine, are allowed to be retained in the communion of the Church as long as they did so by way of religious restraint only. Against the above view of the weak brethren of the chapter before us having been ascetics of the Essenic type, is alleged the strong condemnation of persons supposed to have been of the same sort in Col_2:8, Col_2:16, seq., and 1Ti_4:1-5, which is said to be inconsistent with the tender tolerance recommended here. But the teachers referred to in the later Epistles, though inculcating practices similar to those of the "weak brethren," appear to have been heretical theosophists, the germ probably of later Gnosticism. Their tenets may indeed, in part at least, have been developed from Esseuism; but it was no longer mere conscientious scrupulosity, but principles subversive of the faith, that St. Paul set his face against in writing to the Colossians and to Timothy. Canon 51 in the "Apostolical Canons" above referred to may be adduced as distinguishing between the principles on which asceticism might be practised allowably or otherwise; it being therein laid down that any who abstained from marriage, flesh, or" wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, should be cast out of the Church.

It remains to be observed that there was diffused among the Gentiles also, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, an asceticism similar to the Essenic (see Senec., "Ep.," 108, and Porphyr., "De Abstin."), which Eichhoru supposes the "weak brethren" of this chapter to have been affected by, regarding them as mostly Gentile Christians. But Jewish influences are much more probable; the scruples referred to in 1Co 8 were certainly due to them; and observe ver. 5 in this chapter, which cannot but refer to Jewish observances. Further, Origen, in the treatise above referred to, expressly distinguishes between Christian and Pythagorean asceticism. His words are, "But see also the difference of the cause of the abstinence from creatures having life as practised by the Pythagoreans and by the ascetics among ourselves. For they abstain because of the fable concerning the transmigration of souls; ... but we, though we may practise the like, do it when we keep under the flesh and bring it into subjection" ("Contra Cels.," 4).

Him that is weak in the faith (rather, in faith, or in his faith). The article before pistei does not denote the faith objectively. Cf. Rom_4:19, mh asyenhsav th pistei . In 1Co_8:12 it is the conscience that is spoken of as weak, thdhsin asyenousan . Persons are meant whose faith is not sufficiently strong and enlightened for entering fully into the true spirit of the gospel so as to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. Receive ye, (i.e. take to yourselves with kindness with reference, it may be, both to persons seeking admission into the Church and to those already in it who could not get rid of their scruples. The verb, which is proslambanesye , occurs in a like sense in Act_28:2, and Phm_1:12, Phm_1:17. It may be regarded here as the opposite of ekkleisai yelein cf. Gal_4:17) but not to doubtful disputations; rather, unto i.e., so as to result in judgments of thoughts. The Authorized Version has in margin, to judge his doubtful thoughts," which is probably nearer the true meaning than the text. Diarisiv means elsewhere dijudicartio , (1Co_12:10 Heb_5:14) not "disputation" or "doubt" (as has been supposed from the verb diakrinesyai , meaning "to doubt"). "Non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur" (Augustin, "Prepos.," 78).

Vers. 1-6. Ceremonial and spiritual religion.

This passage is one of many instances occurring in St. Paul"s writings in which circumstances of local and temporary interest suggest the statement of great moral truths and principles, applicable over a far wider area. To us these questions as to whether certain food should be eaten, and certain days should be observed seem trifling enough; yet to how grand and comprehensive a law of Christian action do these considerations lead the mind of the deep thinking and far-seeing apostle!

I THE PRINCIPLE. Our actions should be with a view to the Lord Christ. The motive of Christian conduct is the love of Christ; its aim is the glory of Christ. The personal relation between the Saviour and his people is not such as to lose anything of its dignity and sacredness, when introduced as a motive into the ordinary activity of Christian people. And this principle, so lofty on its Divine side, is most practical upon the human side. Love to Christ, and sympathy with his self-denial, leads his followers to regard the welfare of their brethren, for whom Christ died. Thus Christ"s sacrifice becomes the inspiration and the model of ours.

II THE OUTWORKING OF THE PRINCIPLE. Two special illustrations are mentioned in this passage, from which we may learn how to apply the great Christian law to the varying circumstances of human life.

1. Eating and drinking are necessary acts; but the manner of eating and drinking have often been regarded as associated with religion. Some of the early Christians were so scrupulous that they would eat no flesh, lest they should inadvertently eat what had been offered to idols; others never troubled themselves to inquire about their food. The apostle decides that neither flesh-eater nor herb-eater must despise the other. If each is animated by a regard to God"s glory and to Christ"s kingdom, each deserves respect and esteem.

2. The observance of sacred days has usually been an outward mark of the religious. Of the primitive Christians some regarded and others disregarded such days. The apostle blamed neither party; if they did what they did conscientiously, and unto the Lord, this was enough. It is not in such observances that true religion consists; but in the spirit that governs actions, and the intention with which they are undertaken.

III THE UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE. Occasions are continually arising for remembering the wise counsel of St. Paul. Zealous religionists are wont to push their own views, and zealous controversialists are given to attacking the doctrines and practices of others. Men substitute human dogmas, human fancies, and human remedies for moral and social ills, for the great principles of Christianity. But we shall do well to be guided by liberty for one"s self, by consideration for one"s neighbours, and by charity with reference to the conduct of our fellow-Christians.

HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN. Vers. 1-9. The Christian"s dependence and the Christian"s independence.

The composite character of the Christian community at Rome the Jewish origin of many of its members on the one hand, and contact with heathenism on the other had doubtless given rise to differences of opinion. Some there were who still retained their Jewish prejudices and ideas. They abstained from meats. They observed special days. They were inclined to judge harshly and even to look down upon those who did not think and act as they did (ver. 3). And, on the other hand, those who partook of all meats, and regarded all days as alike, were disposed to find fault with those who attached a religious significance to the partaking of food and the observing of days. The apostle here lays down some general principles which are of use in all such cases where differences of opinion arise about non-essentials.

I THE CHRISTIAN"S DEPENDENCE. "None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 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. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living" (vers. 7-9). There is no such thing as absolute independence. The relation of each individual to Christ, dependence on him and responsibility to him, is here asserted.

1. We depend upon the Lord"s death. In the cross is our hope of forgiveness, pardon, cleansing.

2. We depend upon the Lord"s resurrection. In his resurrection is our hope and assurance of the life and immortality beyond. "Because I live, ye shall live also.

3. We depend upon the Lord"s continual intercession. In his intercession is our hope and assurance of answered prayer.

4. We depend upon the Lord"s continued gifts to us. The Lord"s day; the Word of the Lord; the Lord"s house; the Lord"s Supper; how much our spiritual life is dependent upon these precious blessings provided for us by our Lord and Master! "Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord"s.

5. This dependence upon Christ brings with it corresponding obligations. "Ye are not your own, for ye are bedight with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God"s". (1Co_6:20)

II THE CHRISTIAN"S INDEPENDENCE. The independence of the Christian is the correlative of his dependence. He is dependent upon Christ, and therefore he is:

1. Independent of external circumstances. "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." And again, "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed." Even death can bring no alarm to those who can say, "We are the Lord"s;" for Christ is the Conqueror of death.

2. Independent of human criticism. "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" (ver. 3); "Who art thou that judgest another man"s servant? to his own master he standeth or faileth" (ver. 4); "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (ver. 5). Here the apostle asserts the great principle of liberty of conscience, and inculcates the great duty of charity and toleration. Alas! how often the principle and the duty have been forgotten in the Christian Church! Christian men have excommunicated one another and treated one another as enemies because they differed on some minor detail of doctrine, of government, or of worship.. Even the Protestant Churches, and Protestant Christians, one of whose distinctive principles is liberty of conscience, have sometimes failed to extend to others that toleration which they claim for themselves. "God alone is Lord of the conscience," says the Westminster Confession of Faith, "and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men. C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER Vers. 1-23. Christian liberty.

The general treatment of the ethics of the gospel is concluded, and now the apostle deals with a particular application which the condition of the Church at Rome required. There were some there, a minority probably, who were more or less in subjection to the spirit of the old Judaic economy, making distinctions of meats and of days. And when they came together for the Christian love-feasts, the differences were of awkward consequence. The stronger ones doubted whether they should admit these, so weak in the faith, as they deemed them; the weaker ones were scandalized at the unscrupulousness, as they thought it, of the strong, or perhaps, overborne by the weight of their example, against their own convictions they joined in the common meal. Was there not grievous wrong in this? The stronger ones despising the weak, and overbearing their scruples, by disputations, perhaps by ridicule; the weaker ones, grieved in their hearts, and judging the strong, or otherwise, to their own condemnation, sinking their scruples and joining in the feast? But surely the Divine ethics of the gospel can meet this case: the apostle applies them. He will espouse, not the scruples of the weak, but their weakness, as against the Overbearing ridicule of the strong; but first, to guard himself and them, he will defend the liberty of the strong as against the censorious judgments of the weak.

I THE DUTY OF THE WEAK. The weaker man had his scruples; his strong judgments as to this or that mode of outward living being right, and this or that wrong. And he was quick to condemn the man whose opinions and practices were unlike his own. Not so, says the apostle.

1. He has another Master. Certainly he has yielded himself to Christ, and Christ, not another, must measure the fidelity of his service. If faithful, he abides his servant; if unfaithful, he falls. But he shall not fall. The heart is right, and even if the freedom of outward observance were a mistaken freedom, Christ is not such a Master as to cast him off for a mistake. No; "he shall be made to stand." Is not this the determining principle of the Christian life? Not the minute observance, right or wrong, but the motive, makes the Christian man. It matters nothing comparatively whether we eat or do not eat, whether we observe days or observe them not, whether we live or die: "none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself." The aim of the whole life is Christ-wards, and the aim, not the details, determines the life.

2. He has another Judge. This follows from the former. If Christ be the Master now, he shall judge the service itself at the last. And if we may not measure the fidelity of another"s servant, neither may we pass sentence on his deeds. No; "the day shall declare it, and the fire shall try every man"s work of what sort it is". (1Co_3:13) For it is true that the details of the life will be taken into account, but not by our brethren: "Each one of us shall give account of himself to God.

II THE DUTY OF THE STRONG. So, then, the weak are warned not to judge the men of liberty; and the men of liberty, men of strength as they thought themselves, are to show their strength by gentleness, and their liberty by self-sacrifice. For the conscience of the weak, if erring, was to be respected, and neither were they to be grieved by a needless exhibition of the liberty of the strong, nor above all led to sin against their convictions by the example or ridicule of the preponderant party.

1. They were not to be grieved. Could the stronger ones ruthlessly cause pain to the scrupulous ones by their own seeming unscrupulousness? That was not walking in love. And for the sake of showing that they could eat meat! Away the thought: this was not God"s kingdom. Let them rather know that, eating or not eating, to respect the rights of others, to have peace with all, and to rejoice with a common joy in God, this was God"s kingdom. So also would their spirit commend itself to men and to God. Christians then indeed; as Christ died for the weaker ones, so they sacrificing their liberty for them.

2. They were not to be made to fall. Let them know that, innocent as their eating of flesh might be, it was not innocent to the doubting man, and each one"s conscience must approve his own deeds, or he is condemned. Nay, he falls! Oh, surely they were not prepared for that? For this was, not merely to destroy the weak brother"s peace and charity of heart, but to overthrow the work of God in him! And all for the sake of meat! Better sacrifice all your liberty than this. Have your faith to yourself; have all tender solicitude for your weak brother"s conscience. Then receive the brother, care for him, sacrifice your freedom for him. For while faith, liberty, strength, are good, the best of all is love! T.F.L.

HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR Vers. 1-12. The risen Saviour as Lord of the conscience.

The apostle, as we have just seen, has been discussing the neighbourly character of Christian living, and showing that the Christ-like soul will love his neighbour as himself, and do no ill to him. And this leads by an easy transition to the whole class of weak consciences, and how they are to be dealt with. For there are people painfully scrupulous, who have come, for example, to fancy that vegetarianism is the only lawful system of diet; or to fancy that holy days ought to be strictly kept; and there is a terrible temptation for strong-minded people to judge harshly the weaker brethren, and so to bring about endless friction in Church and private relations. It is with this whole practical question that the apostle here deals. Differences of opinion upon non-essentials must not break up the brotherly feeling; and Paul shows with wonderful power where the safety lies. It is in the assertion of Christ"s Lordship over the conscience.

I LET US BE CLEAR ABOUT WHO ARE THE WEAK AND WHO ARE THE STRONG. (Vers. 1-6) We are all creatures of association, and so some of these primitive Christians came to think that meat which had been offered to an idol was thereby polluted, and so unfit for Christian use. Not knowing, therefore, where the meat offered for sale in the shambles had previously been, and naturally suspecting that it may have been in the idol"s temple, they thought it prudent to become strict vegetarians, rather than run the risk of defilement. They would not touch, taste, or handle flesh-meat, but confined themselves to vegetables. Others had no such scruples, but ate whatever was laid before them, asking no questions for conscience" sake. Now, the apostle manifestly regards the scrupulous vegetarians as weaker in conscience than the Christian who allowed none of these scruples to affect him. Again, some were scrupulous about holy days. New moons and set feasts, characteristic of paganism as well as of Judaism, claimed regard from weak and uncertain consciences; while others of stronger make regarded all days as alike. The question as to the Lord"s day does not seem to be here involved at all, though Robertson of Brighton has based a whole sermon on the supposition, The over-scrupulous in these instances were the weak; the others, more certain of their line of action, were the strong.

II THERE IS A GREAT TEMPTATION IN THE STRONG TO RIDICULE THE WEAK. The strong are tempted to despise the weak, to judge and ridicule their scruples; and, if there is not watchfulness, there will be constant friction between them. Now, this is a menace to the peace of the Church; and Paul has hero to guard against it. There is a great danger in the indulgence of scorn. A weak brother, if "roasted" and ridiculed by the stronger, may be made a burden to himself, and his personal peace be sacrificed on the altar of his neighbour"s criticism. Hence in this passage Paul argues:

1. There should be as little controversy as possible within the Church. The weak brother is to be received, but not to doubtful disputations. He is not to be involved in profitless disputes. The Church is wise which discourages debates between brethren.

2. There should be mutual respect for conscientious difference of opinion. If each man is fully persuaded in his own mind, as Paul declares he ought to be, then let the weak brother admit that his less scrupulous brother has reached his opinion before God, and that God is the only competent Judge of his conduct, while the strong brother is to give the weak one credit for similar conscientiousness. It is a great matter gained if each lays his brother"s case before the Lord, and prays and hopes that God will enable him to stand. It is a great thing gained when we are able to see guilt in contemptuous judgment. ()

III IN THE RISEN SAVIOUR EACH ONE MUST RECOGNIZE THE LORD OF HIS CONSCIENCE. (Vers. 7-9) To Jesus, our risen Saviour. and to him alone, are we responsible, and so let us live, and die unto him. Now, it is important for us to appreciate the purpose of Christ"s death and resurrection. It was no less than this, to secure universal dominion over man both here and hereafter. "The Redeemer"s dominion over men is forcibly declared to have been the end of his ministry on earth. The apostle"s words are very express and emphatic. To this end that signifies, in language as strong as could be used to note design, that the purpose of the Passion was the attainment of universal dominion over the human race in time and in eternity. To this end, and no other; for this purpose, and nothing short of it; with this design, embracing and consummating all other designs. But we must view it under two aspects it was a purpose aimed at before the death; in the Resurrection it was a purpose reached. He died that he might have the dominion; he lived that he might exercise it." Now, of this mighty realm of the risen Christ, the dead constitute the vast majority. "What, in comparison of the uncounted hosts, numbered only by the Infinite Mind, are the few hundreds of millions that any moment are called the living? It is in the realm of the shades that we contemplate our great family in its vastest dimensions, as it has from the first generation been gaining on the numbers of the living, and swelling onwards to the stupendous whole bound up in the federal headship of the first and second Adam." a Now, in all this vast domain, there is but one rightful Lord of the conscience; there may be other lords with dominion, and they may be many; but in the realm of conscience there is only one Lord, and he is the risen Saviour! ()

IV THIS LORDSHIP OF JESUS LEADS DIRECTLY TO THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF LIFE AS A LIFE UNTO OUR LORD. (Ver. 8) We cannot live unto ourselves, even if we tried. We cannot coop up our life so as that it should have no relations to any but ourselves. We must live to influence others; we ought to live for the glory of our risen Lord. In the Christian idea of life "nothing is indifferent, nothing self-willed; all is consecrated to Heaven. The scruples of the weak rise from the fear of God, and are, therefore, to be considered sacred; the freedom of the strong rises from the dedication to the Lord, and is, therefore, equally sacred. Life, with its energies and purposes, is one prolonged act of consecration. Death, with its silent endurance and great transition, is a consecration too." As another has faithfully put it, "As he always exists, as a Christian, in and by his Master, so he always exists for his Master. He has, in the reality of the matter, no dissociated and independent interest. Not only in preaching and teaching, and bearing articulate witness to Jesus Christ, does he, if his life is true to its idea and its secret, "live not unto himself;" not with aims which terminate for one moment in his own credit, for example, or his own comfort. Equally in the engagements of domestic life, of business life, of public affairs; equally (to look towards the humbler walks of duty) in the day"s work of the Christian servant, or peasant, or artisan; "whether he lives, he lives unto the Master, or whether he dies, he dies unto the Master;" whether he wakes or sleeps, whether he toils or rests, whether it be the term or the vacation of life, "whether he eats or drinks, or whatsoever he does," he is the Master"s property for the Master"s use. me, my God and King, In all things thee to see, And what I do in anything To do it as to thee. "A servant with this clause Makes drudgery divine; Who sweeps a room as for thy laws Makes that and th" action fine. (Moule"s "Thoughts on the Spiritual Life," pp. 150, 151)

V INSTEAD OF JUDGING OTHERS, WE OUGHT TO THINK OF BEING JUDGED AT THE JUDGMENT-BAR OF JESUS OURSELVES. (Vers. 10-12) Paul points the lesson home. He would have his readers to give up the judgment-seat and think of the judgment-bar. Better to think how we shall meet Christ"s scrutiny ourselves than be contemptuously condemning weak brethren around us. Leave the weak and the strong with the Lord, who is no respecter of persons, and let us judge ourselves only, and make sure of a proper appearing at the judgment-bar of Christ. Thus, when all relations are carried up to the feet of Christ, peace is preserved and progress through self-knowledge secured! R.M.E.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Him that is weak - Through needless scruples. Receive - With all love and courtesy into Christian fellowship. But not to doubtful disputations - About questionable points.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

to doubtful

for decisions of doubts, i.e. doubts about meats, etc. The church has no authority to decide questions of personal liberty in things not expressly forbidden in Scripture. Rom 14:2-6.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:5

Scruples.

I. We are all liable at various times to be troubled with perplexities about our duty, not because we find it hard or unpleasant, but because we cannot clearly see our way, and this perplexity sometimes amounts to something like darkness, and causes much fear. It is sometimes a doubt about the past, whether we have done right, and sometimes about the present, whether we are in the right way, and sometimes about the future, what we are henceforward to do. Such scruples and perplexities are sent or are permitted to come, it matters not which, by God; and it is intended that with these, as with all other opportunities that come in our way, we should fulfil some end which God would have fulfilled, and their purpose is too plain to be mistaken for a moment.

II. Scruples or difficulties which come in the way of duty are of the wrong kind; they are perversions of conscience, and they require a satisfaction which we have no right to ask. Very often they ask to have settled by reason what really is a matter of feeling. Very often they ask to be blessed with feelings which God chooses to give or withhold at His own pleasure, and which we cannot demand at our pleasure. The time is spent in lamenting past sins which ought to be spent in attending to present duties; the heart is given up to fears which ought to be given up to God; weak regret takes the place of vigorous resolution; longings for a sense of God’s presence, or for a sense of our own love, fill up our souls when we ought to be proving our love by the proof which He has named, that is, keeping His commandments. All such scruples and such inward difficulties are not healthy, and to indulge them is not right.

III. We should consider whether these inward questionings elevate the general tone of our minds, not merely for the discharge of immediate duties, but for the formation of higher and nobler purposes in life. Unless this be the case, these self-questionings are simply of no use whatever. There were no men in the whole of the world’s history who devoted themselves more entirely to questions of this sort than the Jewish Pharisees. And it ended in their case with the grossest and worst hypocrisy. Something of the same sort is very possible still. And the only way to avoid it is always to press the gaze of our consciences towards God and God’s will rather than towards ourselves.

Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons p. 101

Liberty is one of the ideas on which the progress of mankind depends. It is now said that liberty is not only an indefinite term, but that it is nothing more than a negation. We are told, in order to prove its indefiniteness, that it has meant different things to different people and at different times, and that, if you ask a number of persons, they will give different explanations of it according to their prejudices or desires. And that is true enough. But all the same, it does not prove that the idea is indefinite in itself. It is the characteristic of any large idea to take different forms at different times: in fact, it must do so—it is the characteristic of an idea to grow as mankind advances, and its form is therefore sure to change. Outwardly, it must always be in a condition of weaving and unweaving, of ebb and flow, of birth and death. But if people took the trouble, they could at any time arrive at its root and express that in a definite statement. That is the work of the student.

I. The idea of liberty on the side of religion is founded on the fact that God has made each one of us a distinct person; that we each possess, and are bound to act up to, an individuality. I have an intellect, heart, character, and life of my own, modified by circumstances and by the influences of others, but my own; and I have a body of thought as the result of this, which I have a more absolute right to than I have to my property, and which I am bound to express by a stronger duty than that which binds me to my property. Why is that? From the religious point of view I answer, Because it is God who has made you an individual. It is He Himself who, in you, has made you a representative of a distinct phase of His being, a doer of a distinct part of His work. If anything is remarkable in Christianity, it is the way in which it gave an impulse to individual thought and to the freedom of self-development.

II. But this development is impossible if thought and its expression are restrained. For a father to do that for his child is bad enough—for a state or a church to do it for a large number of their subjects is worse still; and whenever this liberty is repressed by force of arms, those who do it are fighting against God. And men have always felt this and every struggle for liberty of thought becomes a religious one, and ought to be considered as such. We hold then, (1) that God practically says to man, "Fight out every question; I give you absolute freedom of thought on them, and I wish you to use it." On the whole, and often by reason of the very elements which seem to oppose it, there has been in this world a fierce freedom of discussion and thought, and it has had its source in God. (2) We hold, secondly, since God guides the world, that, however fierce the battle, and however confusing the chaos of opinions, the best and noblest thing will in the end prevail, and its idea in its right and perfect form stand clear at last and be recognised by all. And when all the ideas which are necessary for man to believe and act on have gone through this long series of experiments, and are known and loved by all, then will the race be perfect.

III. Now, these things, being believed, are a ground of the idea of liberty I have put forward. We ought to fall in with the method of God’s education of the race, and the way to do it is for the state in public life, and for ourselves in social and private life, to give perfect liberty of thought and its expression on all possible subjects. "But if we allow absolute freedom of thought and expression we do not produce any clear ideas on any subject, only a chaos of opinions—as, for example, on the subject of Liberty." That is only too likely to be your view, if you do not believe in a God who is educating the race. And you are driven back, having no faith or hope, on the plan of authority; but the true lover of liberty, who believes in God as a Divine and guiding Spirit in men, has not only hope, but certainty that a solution will be found. He knows that the best and highest view of the idea will in the end prevail, and that the more liberty of discussion he gives, even of evil and dangerous opinions, the sooner will the solution be arrived at.

S. A. Brooke, The Fight of Faith, p. 99.

Liberty at Home.

I. If is the habit of some parents, not only to check, but even to forbid the expression of opinion on the part of their sons and daughters long after they have reached an age when they ought to be able and to be encouraged to think for themselves. As long as their opinions are the mere echoes of those that rule the household nothing is said, but the moment they differ from them restriction comes in. Such a household lives under a paternal despotism, a government which may have some good results as long as the children are quite young, but the results of which are evil in a home when the age of childhood is passed as they are evil in a state when the age of barbarism has been gone through. For if this kind of despotism succeeds, either through love or through violence, and you have imposed your opinions and your character on your children, what have you done? You have crushed that which was individual in them, their own views. They are not themselves; they have never known what they are, and of course they have no original power and can make no progress. Their life is dull, their thoughts conventional, and they become in after life only one addition the more to the rolled pebbles on the beach of society. And if English parents were all to follow the same plan, or if English children did not continually break through this plan, our society would soon sink into the prolonged infancy of a society like that of China, and all the progress of the nation and of the race of man, so far as England sets it forward, be stopped. That would be the result of complete success, and it is just the same in states as it is in families.

II. Having freedom, your children will not abuse it, for they will not only love you, which counts for nothing in these matters, but have real friendship for you, which does; and it will be a friendship which will—since you have accustomed them to weigh evidence—frankly give its full weight to your longer experience. Then, too, they will never be exposed to those violent religious shocks which come on young men and young women who have been hidden away from the difficulties of the day, and who are often utterly overwhelmed when they come out into the world. A boy so trained is not likely to have all his religion knocked on the head, like many weak persons at their first entrance into controversy. Nor is he much horrified with himself if he does doubt or get in some religious darkness, for he has been taught by his father that God is educating him, and that in the end he must see truth. He does not then give up the battle, for his whole training makes him love God too well for that; but he is not in a great hurry, nor is he ever in despair. He watches and waits when he cannot see his way; he is ready to move forward when he does; he has a great faith to support him that he is God’s for ever, and that God will make the best opinion prevalent both for him and the world. And through all, his "parents"—who have always reverenced his soul, always given his questioning intelligence and soul freedom of expression, always looked forward to, and when it came accepted, even with joy, the time when he would emancipate himself from the narrower interests and say, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?"—remain his friends, trusted, believed in, communicated with. He owes to them the greatest gift one man can owe to another, independence of mind, and at the root of life a noble, religious faith—faith that God has chosen him to be a living individual person, and that He will make him perfect in the end.

S. A. Brooke, The Fight of Faith, p. 118.

References: Rom 14:5.—T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. v., p. 23. Rom 14:5, Rom 14:6.—F. W. Robertson, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 160.

Rom 14:7

I. Look at the text as it is interpreted for us by the section of the Epistle to the Romans in which it is found. That section is devoted to an elucidation of the principles by which the early Christians were to be guided as to their observance or non-observance of particular festival days and as to their abstinence or non-abstinence from certain kinds of meats and drinks. "None of us," says the Apostle, "liveth to himself." However it may be with others, none of us Christians liveth unto himself. Each of us has accepted Christ as his Redeemer and Lord, and is seeking in all things to serve Him, so if one eateth, he eateth unto the Lord, and if another eateth not, he eateth not unto the Lord. Because we are seeking to live to Christ, there is, in reference to all matters indifferent, perfect liberty to the individual conscience, and no one has a right to judge or set at nought another for doing that of which he is fully persuaded in his own mind, and which he is seeking to do as unto the Lord. Not our own pleasure, but rather the glory of Christ and the edification and peace and progress of the brotherhood, is to be made the rule of our lives.

II. Consider the text as an inevitable condition of human existence. No man’s life terminates on himself alone, but each of us exerts an influence through his character and conduct upon all with whom he comes in contact. Make haste, then, and see whether the effect of your life on others is good or evil; and if evil, seek for goodness and renewal at the hand of Christ.

III. Read the text as it expresses the deliberate purpose of every genuine Christian. The true believer forswears self. From the moment of his conversion his whole being runs Christward. The volume of the river may be small at first, but, small as it is, its direction is decided, and it gathers magnitude as it flows, for it drains the valley of his life. He keeps himself for Christ, because he owes everything to Christ.

W. M. Taylor, Contrary Winds, p. 341.

References: Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8.—R. S. Candlish, Sermons, p. 250; J. H. Thom, Laws of Life, vol. ii., p. 331; S. Martin, Comfort in Trouble, p. 190; D. Moore, Penny Pulpit, No. 3057.

Rom 14:7-9

I. First among the causes of the gospel’s triumph, if it be not rather the sole cause, is that the belief in the crucifixion and resurrection was not a bare profession, but a real inward life. That some new principle was really working in and fashioning the minds of believers is always assumed by the apostles, and not in the way of a heated enthusiasm, in which the mind projects the colours of its tainted eyesight upon the facts it sees, but as calmly as we could speak of the transactions of the parliament, the law-court, or the exchange. Young lads and tender women, common workmen and slaves, showed that a new spring moved all their actions; and those who came in contact with them, if they had in their hearts any germ of good at all, must have felt the influence of this moral supremacy. And can we find any other solution of this change than the simplest of all, that Christ was keeping His promise of being ever with His disciples? It was God who wrought in them; it was the promised Spirit of God that guided them; it was the Lord of the dead and living who was sitting at the right hand of God and helping and communing with those whom the Father had given Him.

II. Supposing the Divine agency to be admitted, then it follows that our Lord’s nature is Divine. God cannot have been working for so many centuries in the Church causing men to bring forth fruits of righteousness in order to confirm in the earth an idolatrous delusion. Had the Church of Christ been perpetuating that worst of errors, taking the glory of God and transferring it to another, long since would the fountains of grace have been dried up from it, and the spiritual rains of heaven would have refused to refresh it until its idolatry was purged away. But we may bow the knee in His name, we may look up to Him on His Divine throne, we may say with Thomas, "My Lord and my God," because the steady fulfilment of His promises and the streams and blessing ever derived from Him by His Church assure us that His account of His Divine relation to the Father is the very truth.

Archbishop Thomson, Lincoln’s Inn Sermons, p. 109.

Reference: Rom 14:7-9.—J. Duncan, The Pulpit and Communion Table, p. 249.

Rom 14:8

I. What is meant by this strange word "unto"? We live "unto the Lord." It seems to impart at once into the phrase an air of unfamiliarity if not of actual unreality. I will try and explain this. The right and full understanding of it indeed would make any one a master of St. Paul’s philosophy, but some understanding of it we all may win.

II. We have very close relations with each other. No one saw more clearly than St. Paul that religion was bound to take these relations into account, to illuminate and sanctify them. Christ’s religion is above all others the religion of humanity. But St. Paul knew very well that the religion which is based only on men’s relations to one another would be a very imperfect one; for there is a third element in religion which must never be absent, and that is God. By the word unto, live unto the Lord, St. Paul embodies the relation between these three great elements. Live, he says, and perform all your duties to society and to one another; and the way to do so is to live unto the Lord. You are to live with men, for men, but with your thoughts reaching out unto God. These real personal relations between your individual soul and God are not to be sacrificed to your duties to one another; nay, more, you cannot live as St. Paul bids you live, until you live unto God, with your eyes and thoughts and prayers turned to Him.

III. Consider how a real living obedience to the command to live unto the Lord would affect our lives here in our present society. (1) To live means with us all to work. Work in one form or other occupies a large part of our lives. Do you not think it would make a great difference to any man if he felt that all his work was done unto the Lord, not unto men? It would make his work trustworthy; discontent would have no place; consciously superficial work would be impossible, for our work is done for the eye of our Master in heaven. (2) Again, think what dignity it adds to labour. We are working under our Master’s eye, and no work that He gives us is petty or uninteresting. (3) An honest endeavour to grasp this conception is the greatest possible help against positive downright sins; it gives calmness, hopefulness, and the courage of a soul at rest.

J. M. Wilson, Sermons in Clifton College Chapel, p. 52.

I. Note, first, that St. Paul feels and acknowledges the difference that separates the fundamental question of the faith of Christ from those of merely subordinate importance. That Christ, the commissioned Son of God, and Himself God manifest in the flesh, is the sole hope of the believer, exclusive of all reference to human merit; that if man will be just before the living God, it is only in and through Christ that he can be accepted as such; that His work is a complete work, to which man can add nothing, but from which man receives everything; that this is the cardinal fact of the religion which God brought from heaven to earth, and that in this, as in a germ, is enfolded the whole glorious story of eternity, St. Paul insists, reiterates, enforces. But in minor differences of view the principle of charity, wrought by the belief of the main and fundamental, is the guiding star.

II. The "Lord" here spoken of is at once Christ and God. Unto Him, as Christians, we are called upon to live; He who is the principle of our spiritual life is also made the object of it, as the vapours of the ocean supply the rivers that return unto the ocean itself. Unto Him, as Christians, we are called upon to die; He who died for us is made the object of our death likewise. To live unto God is but to return Him His own right in the human heart, to concentrate on Him those affections which originally were formed for Him alone. What is it but to know that even while this shadowy world encompasses us there is around and above it a scene real, substantial, and eternal—a scene adequate, and at this moment adequate, to answer all the ardent longings of our bereaved souls—a scene in which every holier affection, widowed and blighted here, is to be met and satisfied? To live in this belief, this hope; to read in the death of Christ death itself lost in immortality; to make the God of the New Testament the friend, the companion, the consoler of all earthly sorrow; to feel the brightest colours of ordinary life fade in the glory that shall be revealed,—this is to live the life that heralds the immortality unto God.

W. Archer Butler, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 17.

The Christian Idea of Life.

I. "To the Lord we live; to the Lord we die." That idea of life is founded on the great truth expressed in the previous verse—"For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself." In one aspect that is a universal and inevitable law. We are not separate beings, linked only together by outward ties or for selfish purposes. We are not lonely men floating in the stream of time, just now and again in transient companionship with our fellows. Our life is, and must be, part of a larger life, the life of humanity; for by mysterious chains of influence we are bound to each other and to the world. Now, Paul says that what all other men must do unconsciously the Christian does consciously. Unable to live entirely for himself, he chooses not to live for himself at all. He gives the law its highest meaning in voluntarily dedicating his life and death as one perpetual offering to God, and living thus, he lives most nobly as a blessing to society.

II. The motive by which this consecration may be realised. This is given us in the verse which follows our text: "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be the Lord both of the dead and living." It is from Christ’s lordship over life, therefore, that the inspiration springs by which we are enabled to dedicate our whole lives. There are two aspects of this lordship. (1) By the power of His love Christ is Lord over our voluntary life. Among our fellow-men we recognise a kinghood of souls. There are those whom we reverence as spiritual leaders, to whom we yield a loving homage. We rejoice to look up to those greater spirits for guidance and help, and in a sense they reign over us. But far more profoundly is this true with regard to Christ. (2) The second aspect is Christ’s lordship over the inevitable events of life. All things are given into His hands. He is King over our whole histories. Our disappointments, failures, sorrows, "death’s agonies and fears," are known to and sympathised with by Him. Does not this form a glorious inspiration to surrender?

E. L. Hull, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 74.

References: Rom 14:8.—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 162. Rom 14:9.—Parker, Hidden Springs, p. 332; R. S. Candlish, Sermons, p. 266; S. Martin, Comfort in Trouble, p. 204; R. S. Candlish, Sermons, p. 266. Rom 14:10.—Church of England Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 165; Todd, Lectures to Children, p. 62; F. W. Robertson, The Human Race, p. 134; Parker, City Temple, vol. ii., p. 289. Rom 14:11.—Plain Sermons, vol. iv., p. 259. Rom 14:12.—E. Garbett, Experiences of the Inner Life, p. 74; H. P. Liddon, Advent Sermons, vol. i., p. 383; R. W. Church, Church of England Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 365; H. W. Beecher, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 131; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. viii., p. 245; Outline Sermons to Children, p. 217; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 347. Rom 14:16.—W. Ince, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 344.

Rom 14:17

In this verse of Scripture joy is not the first but the last of three. Joy is the home in which the pilgrim rests; righteousness and peace are the paths by which he reaches it.

I. Righteousness. It is the want of righteousness, or guilt, that disturbs our peace or damps our joy. Here lies the root of the ailment, and here, therefore, must the cure begin. A righteousness suitable to our need must obviously consist of two parts—the evil must be removed and the good imparted. Christ’s sacrifice and work correspond to this twofold need of guilty man. His death blots out the guilt, and His life becomes the righteousness of His believing people. Christ personally is everything in the gospel.

II. Peace enjoyed flows from righteousness possessed. When I have righteousness then I have peace. The peace of which the text speaks dwells on earth, but it has been produced there by another peace which has its home in heaven. It is when God is at peace with me that I am at peace with God. When His anger is turned away my confidence in Him begins. I need not cherish my dread when He has taken His wrath away. When peace is proclaimed from the judgment-seat to me, peace echoes from my glad heart up to heaven again.

III. Joy in the Holy Ghost. Here at last is the thing we have been seeking all our days; it is joy, or happiness. There are two conditions possible to a human soul in this life: the one, to be in sin and at enmity with God; the other, to be righteous in Christ’s righteousness, and at peace with God through the blood of the Cross. In respect of the happiness which these two conditions yield, they are related as night and day are related in respect to light. In the region nearest us, and at certain times, they may approach or seem to approach an equality. The night sometimes, through moon and stars and wintry meteors, has a good deal of light in it; and the day sometimes, through rising smoke and hovering clouds, has a good deal of darkness in it. A night of many stars may seem brighter than a day of many clouds; but the night is notwithstanding far different from day. Immortal souls in sin and under wrath may have many bright joys as they traverse this life, but their joys are only sparks on the surface of an eternal night; on the other hand, Christian disciples may have many sorrows, but these are only clouds hovering in the thin atmosphere of earth, hiding heaven from view for the moment, but leaving all the eternity beyond an undimmed, unending light.

W. Arnot, Family Treasury, July, 1861.

References: Rom 14:17.—Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 445; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines, p. 97.

Rom 14:19 (R.V.)

I. This was wise counsel, and counsel that we cannot doubt was in accordance with the mind of Christ. But it has not been much heeded in the Church. Of course there have been peaceable and charitable spirits here and there, who have looked with kindliness and respect on those from whom they have differed in opinion or practice, who have even been willing to receive and to honour as brethren all who loved the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and have been honestly trying to do His work. But the disposition to follow the things that make for strife, and by which one may be set at variance with another, has been, perhaps, more common than the disposition to follow the things which make for peace, and by which we may edify one another.

II. Let us endeavour to be both just and generous in all our relations with those who serve the same Master as ourselves, and in all our criticisms and our judgments upon them. I do not mean at all that we should disguise and conceal our convictions on questions of great though not of the greatest importance, because those convictions may not commend themselves to our neighbours. We are not bound to do that. We are not even at liberty to do it. But we may be persuaded, and we may say with all humility that we think we have learned from the Lord Jesus, that certain conceptions of the Church, and of the nature of religion and of duty, which we hold and cling to, are more in harmony with His will than other conceptions which are held and cherished by our neighbours. We may be persuaded of this, and yet abstain from everything that can engender strifes, keeping ever, strong as our convictions may be, and clear and uncompromising though we may be in the avowal of them, "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." That is to be our aim. In view of the controversies of our time it is incumbent on us to take heed to ourselves, lest in defending what we think to be truth we break the peace and sin against the law of charity, which is the supreme law of the kingdom of God.

H. Arnold Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., p. 379.

References: Rom 14:19.—J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 341. Rom 14:20.—Saturday Evening, p. 28. Rom 14:22.—G. E. L. Cotton, Sermons and Addresses in Marlborough College, p. 386. Rom 15:1.—H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 1st series, p. 113.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Observe here, 1. The person described, whom the apostle recommends to their charity and forbearance: Him that is weak in the faith. Not him that is sick unto death through fundamental error, but one that is sound in the faith, though weak in judgment; men of honest hearts, but weak heads.

Observe, 2. Here is an injunction of charity and Christian forbearance towards these weak ones: Receive them, take them into your houses, yea, into yur hearts; receive them into your society, into your communion, and let not difference in judgment cause any distance in affection.

Observe, 3. The limitation of this injunction: Receive him, but not by doubtful disputations: that is, "Do not quarrel or contend with him about his opinions, or fill his head full of curious and intricate questions, or trouble him with doubtful disputes."

Learn hence, That Christians are to receive such as are weak in the faith, into their hearts by love, without troubling their heads with perplexing disputes. Weak Christians cannot well judge of arguments: and practical piety, and Christian love, will much sooner rectify the judgment of the weak, than fierce argumentations.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

DOUBTFUL QUESTIONS NOT TO BE AGITATED

1-4. In that day the entire meat market was under the auspices of the Greek and Roman idolatry, a beef sacrificed to Jupiter, a mutton for Apollo, a hog to Hercules, a turkey to Minerva, a goose to Venus, a chicken to Diana, and a goat to Mercury, the meat being at the same time sold in the markets for all the people to purchase and eat. Of course those gods had no existence, but were mere creatures of poetic imagination. Therefore it did not hurt the meat to offer it to them. Hence, everyone having clear light and solving the problem in his own mind, could eat this meat with impunity; meanwhile, others saw idolatry as in their old religion while eating the meat offered to their old heathen gods. In the latter case, of course all such must abstain from eating the meat offered to idols. At the same time Paul decides that if the eating of this meat on the part of the people who have clear light and a good conscience, puts a stumbling-block in the way of the weak, they must also abstain. The New Testament early reveals but one thing necessary to bona fide membership in the gospel church, i. e., “that by one spirit we all be baptized into one body” (1Co 12:13). Paul positively forbids the magnification of anything else except the work of Christ, which alone is necessary to salvation. This magnification of non-essentials is the fatal heresy of all ages by which Satan maneuvers to get his black wing between the weak believer and Jesus, and turning his attention to non-essentials, run him into idolatry and plunge him into hell. We are here positively forbidden to tangle up weak believers by disputations over doubtful and non-essential matters. The truth essential to salvation is so plain “that wayfaring men though fools shall not err therein.” In the popular churches the devil has always managed to get the preachers and people to spend their time on non- essentials, leaving the experimental salvation of the soul for death and eternity to settle.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Romans Chapter 14

From the beginning of chapter 14 to the end of verse 7 in chapter 15 (Rom 15:7) another point is taken up, to which the different positions of the Jew and Gentile gave rise. It was difficult for a Jew to rid himself of the sense of difference between days and between meats. A Gentile, having abandoned his whole religious system as idolatrous, held to nothing. Human nature is liable in this respect to sin on both sides-a want of conscience, an unbridled will, and a ceremonial conscience. Christianity recognises neither of these things. It delivers from the question of days and meats by making us heavenly with Christ. But it teaches us to bear with conscientious weakness, and to be conscientious ourselves. Conscience cannot-has not a right to-prescribe a new thing to us as a duty, but it may, through ignorance, hold to a traditional thing as obligatory. In reality we have entire liberty, but we ought to bear with weakness of faith in another, and not put a stumbling-block in his way. The apostle gives three directions in this respect: First, to receive the weak, but not for the discussion of questions that have to be settled; second, not to judge our brother, since he is Christ’s servant, not ours; and every one must give account of himself to God; third, to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves; to walk in the spirit of love, and, if we are in a higher state, to shew it by receiving one another, as Christ has received us, to the glory of God, which eclipses man and his petty superiorities, and which kindles charity and makes it ardent, earnest in seeking the good of others-taking us so out of self, and beyond little things, that we are able to adapt ourselves to others, where the will of God and His glory are not in question.

Many important principles are brought forward in these exhortations. Every one shall give account of himself to God. Everyone, in these cases, should be fully persuaded in his own mind, and should not judge another. If any one has faith that delivers him from traditional observances, and he sees them to be absolutely nothing-as indeed they are-let him have his faith for God, and not cause his brother to stumble.

No one lives to himself, and no one dies to himself; we are the Lord’s. The weak then regard the day for the Lord’s sake; the others do not regard it because of the Lord. This is the reason therefore for not judging. He whom I judge is the Lord’s. Therefore also I should seek to please my brother for his edification-he is the Lord’s; and I should receive him, as I have been received, to share in the glory of God which has been conferred on him. We serve Christ in these things by thinking of the good of our brother. As to the energy of a man’s faith, let him have it between himself and God. Love is the ruler for the use of his liberty, if it is liberty, and not the bondage of disregarding. For the converse of this principle, when these observances are used to destroy liberty in Christ, see Gal 4:1-31, where the apostle shews that, if the observance is taught as a principle, it is really turning back to Paganism.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–4. Him that is weak in the faith. Not firmly established; “not rooted and grounded in the faith;” not fully instructed in Christian knowledge. Receive ye, etc. Take him into your fellowship, but not to discuss and pass judgments on any doubts he may entertain. “Literally, not acting so as to make distinctions about disputatious reasonings.”—Conybeare and Howson. The idea is that disputes over doubtful questions must not be in the way of Christian fellowship.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul encourages believers to remember that they are answerable to God.

weak in faith

This refers to those who felt guilty over eating and drinking certain things.

without giving judgment about arguments

"and do not condemn them for their opinions"

One person has faith to eat anything

Here "faith" refers to doing what a person believes God is telling him to do.

another who is weak eats only vegetables

This describes a person who believes God does not want him to eat meat.

translationWords

receive

faith

judge

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

F. 12–15:13. THE POWER OF THE GOSPEL SEEN IN ITS EFFECT UPON BOTH THE COMMON AND THE INDIVIDUAL LIFE OF CHRISTIANS.

In this section S. Paul deals with the consequences of the principles he has worked out as they affect the character and the conduct of the Christian life. The main principles are two: (1) The Gospel offers to the Christian power to conform his life and conduct to the will of GOD (Rom 1:16), the use of that power depending solely on faith or trust, as man’s contribution to the result. (2) Service in the execution of GOD’s purposes is the fundamental demand made upon man by his relation to GOD; this principle has been exhibited as the explanation of Israel’s failure (9–11); and is now to be expounded in its positive bearing, as determining the main characteristics of the Christian life. In the course of this argument two main thoughts come into prominence. The power, as has been already shown (Rom 6:1 ff.), is the life of Christ in man, due to the living union given by the Spirit in baptism. And consequently the service is the service due from members of a spiritual society or body, conceived as potentially coextensive with humanity, the service due both to the Head and to the other members. The special instances of the operation of this power in service are determined by the conventions of the time and of the situation in which S. Paul found himself and those to whom he is writing. The section may be summarised as follows:

14–15:13. A special case of Christian conduct—its true bearing towards scrupulous brethren

1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα κ.τ.λ. S. Paul passes to a special case (δὲ) of the duty of love and the consequence of the corporate character of the Christian life: we may perhaps regard it as a special case of the injunction, Rom 12:16.

ἀσθ. τῇ πίστει, Rom 4:19; cf. 1Th 3:10; 1Th 5:14; 1Co 8:7 f. Cf. Rom 4:20; 1Co 16:13. τῇ πίστει = his faith—the weakness lies in the fact that his faith in GOD through Christ does not carry him to the detailed conclusions as to the true use and place of all material things and acts in the spiritual life: it is not a wrong faith, but a faith which in certain directions is ineffective. The cause of this ineffectiveness is assigned in 1Co 8:7, as the associations which certain acts have with the sins of the former heathen life. These prevent him from realising the full Christian ἐξουσία (ib[269]).

[269] ib. ibidem

προσλαμβάνεσθε. Phm 1:17; Act 18:26; here Rom 11:15, Rom 15:7; make it a rule to take him into your company and intimacy, whoever he may be.

μὴ κ.τ.λ. = but not; the negative qualification is expressed separately, to give its full scope to the positive injunction.

εἰς διακρίσεις διαλ. For settling doubts, or deciding difficulties; cf. 1Co 12:10; Heb 5:14. This is the only meaning of διάκρισις in N. T. and suits the context well: διαλογισμοί = thoughts involving doubts and scruples; cf. Mat 16:7-8; Luk 5:22. They are not to aim at deciding the questions which the weak brother raises in his mind, in the spirit of judging. It is a fine piece of charity to take a man, opinions and all.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Weak in the faith. Probably referring to a class of Jewish Christians with Essenic tendencies. 67 Better, as Rev., in faith, the reference being to faith in Christ, not to christian doctrine. See on Act 6:7.

Receive ye [προσλαμβανεσθε] . Into fellowship. See on Mt 16:22. Doubtful disputations [διακρισεις διαλογισμων] . Lit., judgings of thoughts. The primary meaning of dialogismov is a thinking - through or over. Hence of those speculations or reasonings in one's mind which take the form of scruples. See on Mr 7:21. Diakrisiv has the same sense as in the other two passages where it occurs (1Co 12:10; Heb 5:14); discerning with a view to forming a judgment. Hence the meaning is, "receive these weak brethren, but not for the purpose of passing judgment upon their scruples."

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.