Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 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.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. Let not him that eatethdespiselook down superciliously upon “him that eatethnot.”
and let not him that eatethnot judgesit in judgment censoriously upon “him thateateth.”
for God hath received himasone of His dear children, who in this matter acts not from laxity,but religious principle.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Set at nought (). Present active imperative of , to treat as nothing and so with contempt (Luke 23:11; 1Thess 5:20).
Judge (). Present active imperative of , criticize. One side (the meat-eaters) despises the vegetarians, while the vegetarians criticize the meat-eaters.
Received him ( ). Aorist middle (indirect) of , same verb used in verse 1. God took both sides into his fellowship without requiring that they be vegetarians or meat-eaters.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Despise [] . The verb means literally to throw out as nothing. Rev., better, set at nought.
Judge [] . 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 [] . 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.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not,” (ho esthion ton me esthionta me eksoutheneito) “Let the one eating not despise or take lightly the one who does not eat”; for he may be conscientious and should not sin against his own conscience, Dan 1:8; Act 10:14; One is not to sneer at another or show contempt for another or disrespect for another over a matter of food.
2) “And let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth,” (ho de me esthion ton esthionta me krineto) “And let not, the one not eating judge him who eats”; 1Co 8:8-13; Act 10:34-35; Mat 7:1 Condemns harsh judgment of another person, especially on matters of mere practical preference.
3) “For God hath received him,” (ho theos gar auton proselabeto) “Because God received him”; God has received him as his child, into his family by faith, Gal 3:26; 1Jn 5:1; Joh 1:11-12. If God saves one in his weakness of morals, ethics, and doctrine is it not proper for his brothers and sisters in Christ to receive him into their fellowship for worship, learning, fellowship, and service? It is proper. This is why Paul instructed, “you all receive him,” verse 1. The six brethren of the company from the church at Joppa did not object, but received the household of Cornelius for baptism by Peter. Act 10:34-35; Act 10:47; Act 11:12-18.
CARE OF INFIRM
Weak Christians have infirmities, but infirmity supposes life; and h e must not despise them-not 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 a burden; as the wall the vine; as parents their children; as oak the ivy. And this because they are brethren. Are they not of the same holy? 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 their barns and chaff? 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. It should be done, likewise, because Jesus Christ does so. “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” –the law of His command, and the law of His example. He takes special care of His lambs, will not quench the smoking flax, and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
-P. Henry
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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.” (417)
(417) The last clause is by [ Haldane ] confined to the strong, and he objects to this extension of it; and certainly the following verse is in favor of his view, for the weak, the condemner, is the person reproved, and therefore the strong is he who to his own master stands or falls. The condemner throughout is the weak, and the despised is the strong. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Let not him who eats set at nought him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats. For God has received him.’
But the one who eats anything quite confidently, without a religious qualm, must not despise in any way the one who eats only vegetables, or abstains from certain types of meat (e.g. pork). And the one who has qualms over what he eats must not judge the one who eats anything. Each must recognise concerning their opponent that God ‘has received him’. Thus all whom God had received must love one another.
‘God has received him.’ Compare Rom 15:7-9 where they are to receive one another because Christ has ‘received them’ And He has done it in order to unite Jews and Gentiles, with Jews (the circumcision) who believed being confirmed in the promises of God, while the Gentiles glorify God for His mercy by benefiting in the Root of Jesse (Rom 15:12).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 14:3. Let not him that eateth, despise, &c. By him that eateth, St. Paul seems to mean the Gentiles, who were less scrupulous in the use of indifferent things; and by him that eateth not, the Jews, who made great distinction of meats, and days, and placed in them a great and, as they thought, necessary part of the worship of the true God.To the Gentiles the Apostle gives this caution, that they should not contemn the Jews as weak, narrow-minded men, who laid so much stress on matters of such smallmoment,andthoughtreligionsomuchconcernedinthose indifferent things. On the other side, he exhorts the Jews not to judge that those who neglected the Jewish observances of meats and days, were still heathens, or would soon apostatize to heathenism again; for he reasons, that God had received them into his family, and that theyhad no authority to judge whether they were of that family, or would continue so, on account of these unessential points: “That,” says he, “belongs only to the master of the family; but notwithstanding your censure or hard thoughts of them, God is able and willing to continue them in his family, if they cleave to him in faith; not withstanding you suspect, from their free use of things indifferent, that they incline too much, or approach too near to Gentilism.” See Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
] defined by the connection as a condemning judgment, pronouncing against the true Christian character, as in Rom 2:1 and frequently.
. . .] ground assigned for ; hence is to be referred to ( 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.
] 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 . . . is contained the contrariety to God of this , and its consequent impiety; and
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3. ] There is no need to supply after . and . I would rather take . as the eater , and . the abstainer.
., for his weakness of faith, , 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 14:3 . . . . 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 ( is emphatic by position) has received the strong into the Church, and therefore his place in it is not to be questioned.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
despise. Compare Luk 18:9; Luk 23:11.
judge. App-122.
God. App-98.
hath received = received.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] There is no need to supply after . and . I would rather take . as the eater, and . the abstainer.
., for his weakness of faith,-, for his laxity of practice.
For God has accepted (adopted into his family) him (i.e. the eater, who was judged,-his place in Gods family doubted: not the abstainer, who was only despised, set at nought,-and to whom the words cannot, by the construction, apply.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 14:3. , him) who eats in faith.-, hath received) [taken to Himself] for example, from among the Gentiles.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 14:3
Rom 14:3
Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not;-God has given clear evidence that there is no sin against him who eats flesh. Yet he does not require it, but he permits any man, who sees fit, to live without it. So he who eats flesh may not set at nought or refuse fellowship for a man that refuses it.
and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth:-Neither can he who eats not reject him as a Christian who eats flesh.
for God hath received him.-God has given no law to govern men on this subject; so every man is left to follow his own judgment or preference in the matter. If any one wishes to eat, none should hinder him; if any does not want to eat, none should require him to eat. Let each be persuaded in his own mind on these untaught questions. Where God has given no law or rule that condemns a man, no one can condemn him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
despise: Rom 14:10, Rom 14:15, Rom 14:21, Zec 4:10, Mat 18:10, Luk 18:9, 1Co 8:11-13
judge: Rom 14:13, Mat 7:1, Mat 7:2, Mat 9:14, Mat 11:18, Mat 11:19, 1Co 10:29, 1Co 10:30, Col 2:16, Col 2:17
for: Act 10:34, Act 10:44, Act 15:8, Act 15:9
Reciprocal: Gen 9:3 – even Lev 11:2 – General Lev 11:47 – General Luk 6:37 – Judge Rom 14:4 – he shall 1Ti 4:3 – to abstain Jam 4:11 – and judgeth
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4:3
Rom 14:3. Him that eateth is the one who will eat all things in the preced-ceding verse. To despise means to belittle or look down upon one, and Paul forbids the one man thus to treat a brother who restricts himself to vegetables. Likewise, this latter man has no right to condemn the one who eats all things, for God hath received him or recognized him as an acceptable servant.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 14:3. Let not him that eateth set at nought (as in Rom 14:10) him that eateth not. The self-consciousness of strength misleads into looking down with contempt on the weak (Meyer). Against this so natural tendency the Apostle cautions; in the latter half of the chapter, the duty of the strong is more fully explained.
Judge him that eateth. The weak brother fails to comprehend the liberty of the stronger one; his misjudgment leads to false judgment, namely, in condemning the person whose conduct he fails to reconcile with the scruples of his weak faith. The reference is, not to doctrinal differences, but to practical Christian ethics.
For God hath received him. Did receive him is more literal, pointing to the time when fellowship in Christ began. This clause gives a reason for not judging (comp. Rom 14:4), though some would prefer it to both the preceding prohibitions. But it is far more pertinent to the weak brethren, since they are apt to excommunicate, withdraw from fellowship on trivial grounds of external observance, thus rejecting him whom God received. The strong do not reject, but, while tolerating, are prone to despise the weak.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
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.”]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 3
Despise him, &c.; regard him with contempt, as weak and narrow minded.–Judge him, &c.; condemn him as guilty of idolatry.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:3 {3} Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for {4} God hath received him.
(3) In such a matter, says the apostle, let neither those who know their liberty proudly despise their weak brother, neither let the unlearned wickedly or perversely condemn that which they do not understand.
(4) The first reason: because both he that eats and he that does not eat is nonetheless the member of Christ, neither he who does not eat can justly be condemned, neither he who eats be justly condemned: now the first proposition is declared in the sixth verse which follows Rom 14:6 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The person who eats should not view himself as superior, even though he is right, or look down on his extremely sensitive brother with a condescending attitude. The weaker brother should not judge the more liberal Christian as unacceptable to God either, because God has accepted him.