Romans 14:3

Rom_14:3-4

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not.

Strong and weak

I. The strong should not despise the weak brethren.

1. Tenderness and sensitiveness of conscience is a quality as precious as it is rare.

2. The clearer light of the strong is due to Gods special mercy and their superior advantages.

3. He who is good enough for Christ should not be rejected by man.

4. Possibly, for aught one could tell, their brothers prejudices might decrease, and he ultimately outshine the strongest of the strong in Christian usefulness.

II. The weak should avoid censoriousness.

1. Difference of opinion will ever exist upon minor questions. No two minds regard the same subject exactly alike. Two artists, looking at the same landscape under like circumstances, will behold it with different eyes, and will represent it, though truthfully, yet according to their own previous education and peculiar stamp of mind.

2. It is the office of God alone to judge, and we should be charitable to others, but severe on ourselves. A weak brother, in regarding his strong brothers conduct, was like a man beholding an object through a mist.

3. Supposing our brother to be somewhat mistaken in trivial points, yet God is willing to receive him; and shall we venture to excommunicate and unchurch him, or withdraw from his fellowship? Might not such conduct irritate his mind, stamp deeper his prejudices, and lead him to magnify the importance of these really subordinate and less essential questions on account of which he is despised, and thus neglect or depreciate fundamental truths? Errors, writes John Scott, like paper kites, are many times raised and kept up in mens minds by the incessant bluster of over-fierce opposition. Conclusion: The weak and the strong have their representatives in all ages of the Church. The former are the conservative, and the latter are the liberal elements. Both parties are necessary in the present order of things. They may be compared to the centripetal and centrifugal forces which keep the Church in its due orbit of practice. (C. Nell, M.A.)

God hath received him.--

Accepted him in Christ, adopted him into His family, approved of that which the weak brother condemned. Their conduct was pleasing to God because according to gospel truth and liberty, not from laxity or flesh pleasing, but from religious principle. Man often condemns when God receives, and vice versa. Believers therefore are to be temperate in judging as well as in living. Gods views and conduct are to guide us--

1. In our judgment of things.

2. In our treatment of persons. The question in regard to a brother is, Does God receive him? The great question for ourselves is, Does God receive me? (J. Robinson, D.D.)

Who art thou that judgest another mans servant?--

Censoriousness

I. The practical condemned.

1. Not all judgment.

2. But measuring and condemning others by our own standard.

3. This is exceedingly common.

II. The evil of it.

1. It is impertinent, because beyond our province.

2. Presumptuous because it is to invade the prerogative of God.

3. Perilous, because God may justify whom we condemn, and the condemnation falls back on ourselves. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

God the defender of those who are unjustly censured

He--

1. Challenges the offender.

2. Asserts His own prerogative.

3. Defends the right. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Christian liberty on debatable ground

(text and verse 15):--

1. A certain divine has said that since Jeremy Taylor and Richard Baxter, English Protestantism has had no great casuists. Nor is this to be regretted. It is safer to leave men to the guidance of those great and obvious moral laws, whose authority every pure and honest heart acknowledges. But as to what are those laws, the world has never been entirely agreed. On the one hand is the denial of all such moral laws. The nihilist and socialist agree in repudiating all moral restrictions. The utilitarian has his selfish statute of limitations to personal liberty. The Christian disciple finds the sum of obligation in one word--love.

2. We are now to consider Christian liberty, as Paul unfolds it. In doing so we are not to forget that the great and obvious moral laws of the Christian system are, like their Author, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, but that the scene and the conditions of their manifestation, in human conduct, are ever shifting, The open questions at Corinth and Rome in the first century touch us not at all, except as illustrations of a principle; while they may be the living questions of the hour in India and China.

I. Liberty is not freedom to do as one pleases.

1. Nobody on earth enjoys such liberty. Liberty is limited by conscience, by the views of others, by our health, by lack of means, by lack of courage, by hereditary traits and disabilities. We cannot believe what we please, for we are limited by the laws of thought and evidence. We are limited in our conduct by society. No man lives to himself in the trades, the schools, or the professions. We cannot divorce liberty from law. This would be to bring in anarchy.

2. Strictly speaking, personal and Christian liberty are the same. What is morally binding upon a Christian man is, in a sense, binding upon everybody. What any man may rightly do as accountable to God, a Christian may do. It will always be the duty of every man to love God and his neighbour, and to put his liberty under the limitations of that reigning principle of love.

3. Christ bound this as a yoke upon the necks of His disciples, to draw this world out of the sloughs of selfishness up on to the table lands of righteousness, and brotherhood, and consequent peace. Some things are for a Christian man innocent and harmless. If he abstain in things indifferent, it is not because it is morally wrong to indulge, but out of deference to the conscience or scruples of others, or the possible peril to which his example might expose those not so strong. His Lord and Master pleased not Himself. And it is enough for the disciple that he be as his Master.

II. Christian liberty is the liberty to be Christlike. When a man becomes the disciple of Christ he advances into a higher realm of liberty than that of the merely ethical right; into the liberty, the self-sacrifice, and self-forgetfulness of love. To the man who has put on Christ this is the grandest liberty in earth or heaven. The one absolutely free man who ever walked the earth was Jesus. The truth makes other men free. He was the Truth, and so was Freedom itself. Saul of Tarsus becomes the slave of Christ and the child of liberty at the same moment. This slave of Christ was the freest man in Greece or Rome. To his great, strong nature, his skilled, dialectic mind, meats and drinks and special days were indifferent matters; every creature of God was good and to be received with thanksgiving. But all were not able to make their way through this tangled mass so easily. All could not so easily shako off the influence of the past.

III. The liberty to be Christlike is all the liberty we have. In this light--

1. If Christian brethren are disposed to stand upon their rights and do what they think themselves honestly entitled to do, Christian liberty gives to their brethren who differ from them no right of censorious judgment. So long as he is true to his convictions in his bolder, freer course, he shall be holder up; for God is able to make him stand, and in condemning him, we may be violating the royal law of charity.

2. Christian liberty gives no warrant to any to follow the example of such at the expense of conscience. Though it be not immoral to enjoy it in and by itself, it is sinful in the man who thus, against his conscience, imitates the freer Christian.

3. The rights of Christian conscience are above the rights of Christian liberty. And so far is this from being a burdensome yoke, worn from love to Christ and men, it is a yoke easy and light and joyous.

4. The question arises, Are the weak always to give law to the strong? There are limits to self-abnegation. Weakness is a bad thing; and if a constant homage be paid to it, it tends to make others weak. I may think it right, for the sake of my own moral vigour and for that of those who are in danger of becoming morbidly scrupulous, to live the bolder freer life which my own conscience approves. We, then, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves;… for even Christ pleased not Himself. It is not the weak giving law to the strong; it is the strong giving law to himself in accordance with eternal principles of heavenly love. Yea, it is Christ, the mighty, leading the way in self-abnegation, and we, who have the mind of Christ, following on as best we can. The infant in the cradle: Is that weak, puny thing always to give law to mother-love? Does infantile weakness give law to mother-love, or does mother-love, obedient to its own instinct, tie itself down to the cradle--the freest thing this side the love of Christ on this earth? But the mother ties herself down to infantile weakness only so long as she must, and for the sake of leading weakness up on to the heights of strength. And so let us do toward the weak everywhere. (H. C. Haydn, D.D.)

The servant of God: his privileges and immunity

I. The Christian is the servant of God. The highest designation he can wear. Worn by Christ, angels, the best of men. He is the servant of God.

1. By creation. He was made to serve--to glorify God.

2. By purchase, and at what a cost--the precious blood of Christ.

3. By willing consecration.

II. The servant of God is responsible to his master.

1. To Him supremely in indisputable duties. Christians are under obligations to their fellow-men in innumerable matters, but largely because their fellow-men in certain relationships are the representatives of God. We cannot pay our debts to God directly, but we conform to the Divine law of honesty by paying our creditors. The servant discharges her duties to God through diligent domestic service.

2. To Him only in doubtful matters. Upon matters about which there is no clear Divine pronouncement, and in conforming or nonconforming to which our only guide is conscience, our only referee is God. This is obvious from the very fact that men differ so widely about them, and from the fact, too, that so often variant opinions are right. The man who ate only herbs was right--they agreed with his constitution, and were not forbidden by Divine law. The man who ate meat was right--it nourished his body, and was allowed by the law of Christ. Circumstances, however, might make either harmful or wrong. Who was to be the judge here? Not another, for no man has a perfect knowledge of the whole of another mans circumstances. The obvious appeal therefore is to the omniscient God.

(1) To God he stands. He must learn from God what is right in given circumstances. If he obeys he stands before God upright. And no man must impugn his moral rectitude.

(2). If he disobeys, acts contrary to the promptings of conscience and the indications of providence, he falls. He has fallen from his moral rectitude. But this being a matter between a man and his Maker, it is criminal for his fellow-creature to interfere.

III. This master will uphold His servant (Rom_16:25; 1Pe_1:5; Jud_1:24).

1. He has promised to do so.

(1) To guide him by His counsel, so that he shall safely thread his way through stumbling-blocks over which he might fall.

(2) To uphold him with His right hand when in slippery places where he might fall. The promise of Gods supporting grace covers the whole of life.

2. This promise is very--

(1) Needful. Were the Christian left to the instincts of an unenlightened conscience, or to the judgment of his fellow-mortals, he would be most unsafe. Hence the need of that infallible wisdom and almighty strength he has in God.

(2) Encouraging. If the Lord is on our side we may be independent of mans censures, and have the comfort of His witness that we are in the right.

(3) Admonitory. Beware, then, of uncharitable estimates. If the brother you condemn is approved of God, you impugn Gods judgment. Hence the indignant, Who art thou? etc.

Conclusion. In disputable matters.

1. Let each mind his own business.

2. Let each see that his business is pleasing to God. (J. W. Burn.)

Meddlesome people

I knew man, in my youth, an elderly man, who was a great observer of human nature. I will not say of him, as it was said of Oliver Cromwell, that he could look through a mans skin right to his backbone--but he had a most shrewd knowledge of mankind. A young man used to converse with him, occasionally, on this very theme of human character; and, one day, after a long conversation upon it, the young man said, Ah! well; there are all sorts of people in the world. Nay. said the elder man, there is one sort wanting. What sort is that? asked the young man eagerly. The people, replied the elder man, who mind their own business, and let other peoples business alone. (Thomas Cooper.)

Minding ones own business

A lady made a complaint to Frederick the Great, King of Prussia: Your Majesty, said she, my husband treats me badly. Thats none of my business, said the king. But he speaks ill of you, said the lady. That, said he, is none of your business.

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

14:3-4 look down on . . . condemn: The “strong,” those who prided themselves on their enlightened freedom in Christ, looked with disdain on those they considered to be “weak.” The weak, in turn—certain that they were following the true route to piety—condemned the strong for their laxness. These attitudes, over different issues, are mirrored throughout the history of the Christian church. • God has accepted them: Both the weak and the strong are genuine believers, welcomed by God into his family. Therefore, they have no right to treat each other as if they do not belong (14:4; see also 15:7).

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

Rom 14:3. αὐτὸν, him) who eats in faith.—προσελάβετο, hath received) [taken to Himself] for example, from among the Gentiles.

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

Rom_14:3. Prohibition for each of the two parties. The self-consciousness of strength misleads into looking down with contempt on the weak; the narrowness of weakness is unable to comprehend the free thinking of the strong one, and judges it.

κρινέτω] defined by the connection as a condemning judgment, pronouncing against the true Christian character, as in Rom_2:1 and frequently.

ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] ground assigned for μὴ κρινέτω; hence αὐτόν is to be referred to τὸν ἐσθίοντα (i.e. him who eats all things), not with Reiche (following Calvin and others) to both, the strong and the weak, against which Rom_14:4 is also decisive.

προσελάβετο] has taken him to Himself, namely, into His fellowship (comp. Rom_14:1) through Christ; not: into His house as servant (see on Rom_14:4), as Vatablus, Reiche, and Hofmann hold.

In ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ κ.τ.λ. is contained the contrariety to God of this κρίνειν, and its consequent impiety; and

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 14:3 . ὁ ἐσθίων … μὴ ἐξουθενείτω κ . τ . λ . Paul passes no sentence on either party, but warns both of the temptations to which they are exposed. He who eats will be inclined to contempt to sneer at the scruples of the weak as mere prejudice or obscurantism; he who does not eat will be inclined to censoriousness to pronounce the strong, who uses his liberty, no better than he should be. This censoriousness is forbidden, because God ( ὁ θεὸς is emphatic by position) has received the strong into the Church, and therefore his place in it is not to be questioned.

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

Rom_14:3

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. There is mutual forbearance to be exercised in relation to this subject. The strong are not to despise the weak as superstitious and imbecile; nor the weak to condemn those who disregard their scruples. Points of indifference are not to be allowed to disturb the harmony of Christian fellowship. For God hath received him, i.e. God has recognized him as a Christian, and received him into his kingdom. This reason is not designed to enforce merely the latter of the two duties here enjoined, but is applied to both. As God does not make eating or not eating certain kinds of food a condition of acceptance, Christians ought not to allow it to interfere with their communion as brethren. The Jewish converts were perhaps quite as much disposed to condemn the Gentile Christians, as the latter were to despise the Christian Jews; Paul therefore frames his admonition so as to reach both classes. It appears, however, from the first verse, and from the whole context, that the Gentiles were principally intended.

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

In such a matter, saith the Apostle, Let neither them which know their liberty, proudly despise their weaker brother, neither let the unlearned crabbedly or frowardly condemn that, that they understand not.

The first reason: Because that seeing both he that eateth and he that eateth not, is notwithstanding the member of Christ, neither he which eateth not, can justly be condemned, neither he which eateth be justly condemned: Now the first proposition is declared in the sixth verse following.

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

Let not him that eateth despise--look down superciliously upon "him that eateth not."

and let not him that eateth not judge--sit in judgment censoriously upon "him that eateth."

for God hath received him--as one of His dear children, who in this matter acts not from laxity, but religious principle.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. Let not him that eateth] The Gentile, who eats flesh, despise him, the Jew, who eateth not flesh, but herbs. And let not him, the Jew, that eateth not indiscriminately, judge - condemn him, the Gentile, that eateth indiscriminately flesh or vegetables.

For God hath received him.] Both being sincere and upright, and acting in the fear of God, are received as heirs of eternal life, without any difference on account of these religious scruples or prejudices.

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

3. Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties. They who were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were scrupulous about insignificant things, and also derided them: these, on the other hand, were hardly able to refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow; for whatever they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil. Hence he exhorts the former to refrain from contempt, and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason which he adds, as it belongs to both parties, ought to be applied to the two clauses, — “When you see,” he says, “a man illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.”

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.

(3) Let not him that eateth.—The two classes of men are exposed to two opposite faults. The strong despise the weak; the weak judge the strong. In the one case there is contempt for what is thought to be narrowness and pedantry. In the other case censorious judgments are passed on what is regarded as levity and irreligion. Human nature alters very little.

God hath received him.—Strictly, received him, admitted him into His Church when he was baptised, and so took him for His own.

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

3. It is unmistakable, from all the passages in question, on which side apostolic truth lay. St Paul clearly decides against the principle of the “weak brethren;” though he treats it as an error which might lawfully and usefully be met by toleration and the quiet influence of tolerant example.

3. God hath received him] Lit. God did receive him; i.e. at the crisis of his conversion; on the sole revealed condition of his accepting and confessing Christ as his Saviour and Lord. Same verb as that in Rom_14:1.

This clause may probably refer to both the two preceding clauses; but its main reference (see next verse) is to the fact that the “strong” Christian, in spite of his apparent laxity, had been welcomed by God.

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.

Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not,.... Such who had a greater degree of Gospel light and knowledge, and made use of their Christian liberty in eating any sort of food, were not to despise as they were apt to do, such as abstained therefrom on account of the ceremonial law, as weak, ignorant; superstitious, and bigoted persons; or were not to set them at naught, or make nothing of them, as the word signifies, have no regard to their peace and comfort; but, on the other hand, were to consider them as brethren in Christ, though weak; and as having a work of God upon their souls, and therefore to be careful how they grieved them, destroyed their peace, or laid stumblingblocks in their way:

and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth: such who thought it not their duty to eat anything, but to forbear the use of some things directed to in the law, were not to censure and condemn, as they were apt to do, those who used their liberty in these things, as profane persons, and transgressors of the law of God; but leave them to the last and righteous judgment, when every one must be accountable to God for the various actions of life: the reason used to enforce this advice on both parties is,

for God hath received him: which respects both him that eateth, and him that eateth not, him that is despised, and him that is judged; and is a reason why one should not despise, nor the other judge, because God had received both the one and the other into his heart's love and affection, into the covenant of grace, and into his family by adoption: they were received by Christ, coming to him as perishing sinners, according to the will of God; whose will it likewise was, that they should be received into church fellowship, as being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and God had also received them into his service, and they were made willing to serve him, as well as to be saved by him; and did serve him acceptably with reverence and godly fear, in righteousness and holiness; and this is the rather to be taken into the sense of this passage, because of what follows.

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

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.

Ver. 3. For God hath received him] viz. For his household servant, which David counted a greater dignity than to be king of Israel. And Justinian the emperor styled himself Ultimum servorum Dei, the meanest of God’s servants.

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.

Let not him that eateth - That is, he who has no scruples about eating “meat,” etc., who is not restrained by the Law of the Jews respecting the Clean and unclean, or by the fact that meat “may” have been offered to idols.

Despise him - Hold him in contempt, as being unnecessarily scrupulous, etc. The word “despise” here is happily chosen. The Gentile would be very likely to “despise” the Jew as being restrained by foolish scruples and mere distinctions in matters of no importance.

Him that eateth not - Him that is restrained by scruples of conscience, and that will eat only “vegetables;” Rom 14:2. The reference here is doubtless to the “Jew.

Judge him - To “judge” here has the force of “condemn.” This word also is very happily chosen. The Jew would not be so likely to “despise” the Gentile for what he did as to “judge” or condemn him. He would deem it too serious a matter for contempt. He would regard it as a violation of the Law of God, and would be likely to assume the right of judging his brother, and pronouncing him guilty. The apostle here has happily met the whole case in all disputes about rites, and dress, and scruples in religious matters that are not essential. One party commonly “despises” the other as being needlessly and foolishly scrupulous; and the other makes it a matter of “conscience,” too serious for ridicule and contempt; and a matter, to neglect which, is, in their view, deserving of condemnation. The true direction to be given in such a case is, “to the one party,” not to treat the scruples of the other with derision and contempt, but with tenderness and indulgence. Let him have his way in it. If he can be “reasoned” out of it, it is well; but to attempt to “laugh” him out of it is unkind, and will tend only to confirm him in his views. And “to the other party,” it should be said they have no “right” to judge or condemn another. If I cannot see that the Bible requires a particular cut to my coat, or makes it my duty to observe a particular festival, he has no right to judge me harshly, or to suppose that I am to be rejected and condemned for it. He has a right to “his” opinion; and while I do not “despise” him, he has no right to “judge” me. This is the foundation of true charity; and if this simple rule had been followed, how much strife, and even bloodshed, would it have spared in the church. Most of the contentions among Christians have been on subjects of this nature. Agreeing substantially in the “doctrines” of the Bible, they have been split up into sects on subjects just about as important as those which the apostle discusses in this chapter.

For God hath received him - This is the same word that is translated “receive” in Rom 14:1. It means here that God hath received him kindly; or has acknowledged him as his own friend; or he is a true Christian. These scruples, on the one side or the other, are not inconsistent with true piety; and as “God” has acknowledged him as “his,” notwithstanding his opinions on these subjects, so “we” also ought to recognise him as a Christian brother. Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them.

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

God hath taken him to him, that eats of any meats; he accounts him his servant, and will reward him as such. --- God is able to make him stand, and will justify him before his tribunal. (Witham)

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).

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; i.e. Let not him that makes use of his liberty in eating any thing indifferently, vilify or contemn him that is of a contrary mind, as one that is ignorant and over scrupulous; and let not him that forbears such meats as were of old forbidden, judge and condemn him that is contrary-minded, as profane and over-venturous; notwithstanding such little difference in opinion, let one Christian love and communicate with another.

For God hath received him: it is disputed, whether this be meant of the weak or strong Christian; the word judge, which immediately goes before and follows after, carries it rather for the latter. But some think it is meant of both. He that eateth, and he that eateth not, is received by God into his church and family, and indiffercnlly accepted with him, uponanother and a higher account.

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

3. Let not—The apostle himself belongs not to the weak or over scrupulous side, but to the strong or less scrupulous. He therefore first conciliates both sides, and then (Rom_14:4) strongly maintains the sustainability by God of the stronger but less scrupulous thinkers.

Despise—The natural feeling of the sounder mind toward the morbid conscience is contempt.

Judge—The feeling of the stricter conscience toward the less scrupulous is condemnation. These weaklings are not so clearly weaklings in their own estimation. On the contrary, the apostle warns them against arrogant judging, and through 10-13 cites them to the judgment seat of Christ.

God hath received him—A protective against the strong judgment of the weakling, continued through next verse. 4.

God is able—Though condemned for lax conscience, God is mighty to sustain the advocate for the innocence of every diet. It is not always the stricter side of a moral question that is right.

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

Despise him that eateth not - As over-scrupulous or superstitious. Judge him that eateth - As profane, or taking undue liberties. For God hath received him - Into the number of his children, notwithstanding this.

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

Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him . [Eating or not eating was, with Paul, a matter of indifference; but uncharitable conduct toward a Christian brother was not a matter of indifference--it was sin. Hence the apostle interferes, not by way of counsel, but by unequivocal commandment, strictly forbidding the strong to look with disdainful eye upon the temerity of the weak, contemptuously despising him as the victim of narrow prejudice and baseless superstition; and with equal strictures charging the weak not to commit the sin of censorious judgment by ignorantly confounding liberty with license and thus unjustly condemning the strong as libertines and heretics, unscrupulous and irreverent. In modern times controversy over meat sacrificed to idols is unknown, but the principle still applies as to instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Such matters of indifference are not to be injected into the terms of salvation, or set up as tests of fellowship. As to them there is to be neither contempt on the one part, nor judgment on the other. Baptism, however, is not a matter of indifference, being as much a divinely established term in the plan of salvation as faith itself ( Mar_16:16 ). "It is a notable fact," observes Lard, "that the weak are always more exacting and sensitive than the strong, as well as more ready than they to press their grievances to extremes."]

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.

3. Let not him that eateth despise, etc. Look with contempt on what he considers the weakness of the other. Let not him that eateth not judge, etc. Condemn as guilty of sinful practices. For God hath received him. God hath taken him into his church without making conditions concerning meats. Hence, you have no right to reject him.

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.

Who are you, you who judge a servant belonging to someone else?

Paul is using a question to scold those who are judging others. You can translate this as a statement. AT: "You are not God, and you are not allowed to judge one of his servants!" (See: Rhetorical Question)

you, you

The form of "you" here is singular. (See: Forms of You)

It is before his own master that he stands or falls

Paul speaks of God as if he were a master who owned servants. AT: "Only the master can decide if he will accept the servant or not" (See: Metaphor)

But he will be made to stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand

Paul speaks of the servant who is acceptable to God as if he were being "made to stand" instead of falling. You can translate this in an active form. AT: "But the Lord will accept him because he is able to make the servant acceptable" (See: Metaphor and Active or Passive)

translationWords

judge

God

servant

lord

lord

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

3. ὁ ἐσθίων, sc. κρέα. The injunction is put in form as if the preceding statement had been negative, κρέα οὐκ ἐ.

μὴ ἐξ.—κρ. The idiomatic use = give up despising—judging; cf. Rom 14:13.

ἐξουθενείτω. The contempt which ignores: )[272] προσλαμβάνεσθαι; cf. Luk 18:9; Act 4:11; 1Co 1:28; 1Co 6:4.

[272] )( opposed to

κρινέτω. The judgment which makes sins out of what are not sins. Both tempers are subversive of ἀγαπη.

ὁ θεὸς γὰρ κ.τ.λ. This implies the principle of the whole argument against the validity of the law for Christians: but in such a way as to assume that there is now no controversy on the matter. His admission to the body of Christ carried no such conditions. The aor. must refer to that admission in baptism.

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.

3.] There is no need to supply πάντα after ἐσθ. and μὴ ἐσθ. I would rather take ὁ ἐσθ. as the eater, and ὁ μὴ ἐσθ. the abstainer.

ἐξουθ., for his weakness of faith,—κρινέτω, for his laxity of practice.

For God has accepted (adopted into his family) him (i.e. the eater, who was judged,—his place in God’s family doubted: not the abstainer, who was only despised, set at nought,—and to whom the words cannot, by the construction, apply.

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

3. ὁ ἐσθίων ̣ ̣ ̣ ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐσθίων. St. Paul uses these expressions to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit of censoriousness of the other.

ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν προσελάβετο. See ver. 1. God through Christ has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has not required.

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

Despise [εξουθενειτω] . The verb means literally to throw out as nothing. Rev., better, set at nought.

Judge [κρινετω] . Judgment is assigned to the weak brother, contempt to the stronger. Censoriousness is the peculiar error of the ascetic, contemptuousness of the liberal. A distinguished minister once remarked : "The weak brother is the biggest bully in the universe!" Both extremes are allied to spiritual pride.

Hath received [προσελαβετο] . The aorist points to a definite time - when he believed on Christ, though there is still a reference to his present relation to God as determined by the fact of his reception then, which may warrant the rendering by the perfect.

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

Vv. 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.”

This verse contains the theme which is about to be developed down to Rom 14:12. The two propositions are connected in the T. R. by and, and in the Alex. by but. The second reading more strongly, perhaps too strongly, contrasts the two views. The term despise applies well to one who feels himself strong, and regards with a disdainful eye the timid attitude of the weak; the term judge suits the latter, who, not understanding the liberty used by the strong, is disposed to confound it with license.

The last words: God hath received him, may refer to both, or to the latter only (the strong). The following verses being addressed more particularly to the weak, it may possibly be the divine reception of the strong only to which Paul wishes here to refer. A being whom God has taken to Him, whom He has made one of His own, ought not to be judged lightly by his brother, as if he were without master. This is what is developed in the following verse.

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.