Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 14:1
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
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.] . 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Him that is weak in thefaithrather, “in faith”; that is, not “him thatis weak in the truth believed” [CALVIN,BEZA, ALFORD,c.], but (as most interpreters agree), “him whose faith wantsthat firmness and breadth which would raise him above smallscruples.” (See on Ro 14:22,23).
receive yeto cordialChristian fellowship.
but not to doubtfuldisputationsrather, perhaps, “not to the deciding ofdoubts,” or “scruples” that is, not for the purpose ofarguing him out of them: which indeed usually does the reverse;whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and cordialinterchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way ofdrawing them off. Two examples of such scruples are here specified,touching Jewish meats and days. “The strong,”it will be observed, are those who knew these to be abolished underthe Gospel; “the weak” are those who had scruples on thispoint.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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, Ex 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Exhortations to Candour; The Dominion of Christ. | A. D. 58. |
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 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. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth 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. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 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. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
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, Acts xxviii. 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 (v. 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, v. 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, 1 Cor. x. 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, v. 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. iv. 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, v. 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, proslambavesthe—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 1Co 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, v. 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, v. 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, 1Pe 1:5; Jud 1:24.
(2.) Because they are servants to their own master (v. 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. iii. 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, v. 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 1 Tim. iv. 4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from 1 Cor. x. 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, v. 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 (v. 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. iii. 17), with an eye to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, Phil. i. 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, v. 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 (Acts x. 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 (Matt. xxviii. 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, v. 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, 2 Cor. v. 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 (v. 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. xlv. 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, Acts xvii. 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. xli. 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 (v. 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. ii. 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. vi. 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, c. 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. ix. 10), abstaining from some meats religiously (Lev. xi. 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, 1 Tim. iv. 4. So, as to other things, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15; 1Co 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. xxxii. 17. Thirdly, It is in these things to serve Christ (v. 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 v. 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; Rom 14:23, which two verses explain this, and give us a rule not to act against the dictates,
(1.) Of a mistaken conscience, v. 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. i. 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, Acts x. 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, that our wills, in all their choices, motions, and directions, should follow the dictates of our understandings. This is the order of nature, which order is broken if the understanding (though misguided) tell us that such a thing is a sin, and yet we will do it. This is a will to do evil; for, if it appears to us to be sin, there is the same pravity and corruption of the will in the doing of it as if really it were a sin; and therefore we ought not to do it. Not that it is in the power of any man’s conscience to alter the nature of the action in itself, but only as to himself. It must be understood likewise with this proviso, though men’s judgments and opinions may make that which is good in itself to become evil to them, yet they cannot make that which is evil in itself to become good, either in itself or to them. If a man were verily persuaded (it is Dr. Sanderson’s instance, sermon on ch. xiv. 23) that it were evil to ask his father’s blessing, that mispersuasion would make it become evil to him: but, if he should be as verily persuaded that it were good to curse his father, this would not make it become good. The Pharisees taught people to plead conscience, when they made corban an excuse for denying relief to their parents, Mat 15:5; Mat 15:6. But this would not serve any more than Paul’s erroneous conscience would justify his rage against Christianity (Acts xxvi. 9), or theirs, John xvi. 2.
(2.) Nor must we act against the dictates of a doubting conscience. In those indifferent things which we are sure it is no sin not to do, and yet are not clear that it is lawful to do them, we must not do them while we continue under those doubts; for he that doubteth is damned if he eat (v. 23), that is, it turns into sin to him; he is damned, katakekritai—he is condemned of his own conscience, because he eateth not of faith, because he does that which he is not fully persuaded he may lawfully do. He is not clear that it is lawful for him to eat swine’s flesh (suppose), and yet is drawn, notwithstanding his doubts, to eat it, because he sees others do it, because he would gratify his appetite with it, or because he would not be reproached for his singularity. Here his own heart cannot but condemn him as a transgressor. Our rule is, to walk as far as we have attained, not further, Phi 3:15; Phi 3:16.– For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Taking it in general, it is the same with that of the apostle (Heb. xi. 6), Without faith it is impossible to please God. Whatever we do in religion, it will not turn to any good account, except we do it from a principle of faith, with a believing regard to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, and to the righteousness of Christ as our plea. Here it seems to be taken more strictly; whatever is not of faith (that is, whatever is done while we are not clearly persuaded of the lawfulness of it), is a sin against conscience. He that will venture to do that which his own conscience suggests to him to be unlawful, when it is not so in itself, will by a like temptation be brought to do that which his conscience tells him is unlawful when it is really so. The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord, and it is a dangerous thing to debauch and put a force upon conscience, though it be under a mistake. This seems to be the meaning of that aphorism, which sounds somewhat darkly (v. 22), Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows. Many a one allows himself in practice to do that which yet in his judgment and conscience he condemns himself for–allows it for the sake of the pleasure, profit, or credit of it–allows it in conformity to the custom; and yet whilst he does it, and pleas for it, his own heart gives him the lie, and his conscience condemns him for it. Now, happy is the man who so orders his conversation as not in any action to expose himself to the challenges and reproaches of his own conscience–that does not make his own heart his adversary, as he must needs do who does that which he is not clear he may lawfully do. He is happy that has peace and quietness within, for the testimony of conscience will be a special cordial in troublesome times. Though men condemn us, it is well enough if our own hearts condemn us not, 1 John iii. 21.
4. Another rule here prescribed is to those who are clear in these matters, and know their Christian liberty, yet to take heed of using it so as to give offence to a weak brother. This is laid down v. 13, Let us not judge one another any more. “Let it suffice that you have hitherto continued in this uncharitable practice, and do so no more.” The better to insinuate the exhortation, he puts himself in; Let us not; as if he had said, “It is what I have resolved against, therefore do you leave it: but judge this rather, instead of censuring the practice of others, let us look to our own, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way,“–proskomma, e skandalon. We must take heed of saying or doing any thing which may occasion our brother to stumble or fall; the one signifies a less, the other a greater degree of mischief and offence–that which may be an occasion,
(1.) Of grief to our brother, “One that is weak, and thinks it unlawful to eat such and such meats, will be greatly troubled to see thee eat them, out of a concern for the honour of the law which he thinks forbids them, and for the good of thy soul which he thinks is wronged by them, especially when thou dost it wilfully and with a seeming presumption, and not with that tenderness and that care to give satisfaction to thy weak brother which would become thee.” Christians should take heed of grieving one another, and of saddening the hearts of Christ’s little ones. See Mat 18:6; Mat 18:10.
(2.) Of guilt to our brother. The former is a stumbling-block, that gives our brother a great shake, and is a hindrance and discouragement to him; but this is an occasion to fall. “If thy weak brother, purely by thy example and influence, without any satisfaction received concerning his Christian liberty, be drawn to act against his conscience and to walk contrary to the light he has, and so to contract guilt upon his soul, though the thing were lawful to thee, yet not being so to him (he having not yet thereto attained), thou art to be blamed for giving the occasion.” See this case explained, 1 Cor. viii. 9-11. To the same purport (v. 21) he recommends it to our care not to give offence to any one by the use of lawful things: It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine; these are things lawful indeed and comfortable, but not necessary to the support of human life, and therefore we may, and must, deny ourselves in them, rather than give offence. It is good–pleasing to God, profitable to our brother, and no harm to ourselves. Daniel and his fellows were in better liking with pulse and water than those were who ate the portion of the king’s meat. It is a generous piece of self-denial, for which we have Paul’s example (1 Cor. viii. 13), If meat make my brother to offend; he does not say, I will eat no meat, that is to destroy himself; but I will eat no flesh, that is to deny himself, while the world stands. This is to be extended to all such indifferent things whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, is involved either in sin or in trouble: or is made weak–his graces weakened, his comforts weakened, his resolutions weakened. Is made weak, that is, takes occasion to show his weakness by his censures and scruples. We must not weaken those that are weak; that is to quench the smoking flax and to break the bruised reed. Observe the motives to enforce this caution.
[1.] Consider the royal law of Christian love and charity, which is hereby broken (v. 15): If thy brother be grieved with thy meat–be troubled to see thee eat those things which the law of Moses did forbid, which yet thou mayest lawfully do; possibly thou art ready to say, “Now he talks foolishly and weakly, and it is no great matter what he says.” We are apt, in such a case, to lay all the blame on that side. But the reproof is here given to the stronger and more knowing Christian: Now walkest thou not charitably. Thus the apostle takes part with the weakest, and condemns the defect in love on the one side more than the defect in knowledge on the other side; agreeably to his principles elsewhere, that the way of love is the more excellent way, 1 Cor. xii. 31. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth, 1 Cor. viii. 1-3. Now walkest thou not charitably. Charity to the souls of our brethren is the best charity. True love would make us tender of their peace and purity, and beget a regard to their consciences as well as to our own. Christ deals gently with those that have true grace, though they are weak in it.
[2.] Consider the design of Christ’s death: Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died, v. 15. First, Drawing a soul to sin threatens the destruction of that soul. By shaking his faith, provoking his passion, and tempting him to act against the light of his own conscience, thou dost, as much as in thee lies, destroy him, giving him an occasion to return to Judaism. Me apollye. It denotes an utter destruction. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water; we are not sure that it will stop any where on this side of eternal destruction. Secondly, The consideration of the love of Christ in dying for souls should make us very tender of the happiness and salvation of souls, and careful not to do any thing which may obstruct and hinder them. Did Christ quit a life for souls, such a life, and shall not we quit a morsel of meat for them? Shall we despise those whom Christ valued at so high a rate? Did he think it worth while to deny himself so much for them as to die for them, and shall not we think it worth while to deny ourselves so little for them as abstaining from flesh comes to?–with thy meat. Thou pleadest that it is thy own meat, and thou mayest do what thou wilt with it; but remember that, though the meat is thine, the brother offended by it is Christ’s, and a part of his purchase. While thou destroyest thy brother thou art helping forward the devil’s design, for he is the great destroyer; and, as much as in thee lies, thou art crossing the design of Christ, for he is the great Saviour, and dost not only offend thy brother, but offend Christ; for the work of salvation is that which his heart is upon. But are any destroyed for whom Christ died? If we understand it of the sufficiency and general intendment of Christ’s death, which was to save all upon gospel terms, no doubt but multitudes are. If of the particular determination of the efficacy of his death to the elect, then, though none that were given to Christ shall perish (John vi. 39), yet thou mayest, as much as is in thy power, destroy such. No thanks to thee if they be not destroyed; by doing that which has a tendency to it, thou dost manifest a great opposition to Christ. Nay, and thou mayest utterly destroy some whose profession may be so justifiable that thou art bound to believe, in a judgment of charity, that Christ died for them. Compare this with 1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:11.
[3.] Consider the work of God (v. 20): “For meat destroy not the work of God–the work of grace, particularly the work of faith in thy brother’s soul.” The works of peace and comfort are destroyed by such an offence given; take heed of it therefore; do not undo that which God hath done. You should work together with God, do not countermine his work. First, The work of grace and peace is the work of God; it is wrought by him, it is wrought for him; it is a good work of his beginning, Phil. i. 6. Observe, The same for whom Christ died (v. 15) are here called the work of God; besides the work that is wrought for us there is a work to be wrought in us, in order to our salvation. Every saint is God’s workmanship, his husbandry, his building, Eph 2:10; 1Co 3:9. Secondly, We must be very careful to do nothing which tends to the destruction of this work, either in ourselves or others. We must deny ourselves in our appetites, inclinations, and in the use of Christian liberty, rather than obstruct and prejudice our own or others’ grace and peace. Many do for meat and drink destroy the work of God in themselves (nothing more destructive to eh soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh, and fulfilling the lusts of it), so likewise in others, by wilful offence given. Think what thou destroyest–the work of God, whose work is honourable and glorious; think for what thou destroyest it–for meat, which was but for the belly, and the belly for it.
[4.] Consider the evil of giving offence, and what an abuse it is of our Christian liberty. He grants that all things indeed are pure. We may lawfully eat flesh, even those meats which were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but, if we abuse this liberty, it turns into sin to us: It is evil to him that eats with offence. Lawful things may be done unlawfully.–Eats with offence, either carelessly or designedly giving offence to his brethren. It is observable that the apostle directs his reproof most against those who gave the offence; not as if those were not to be blamed who causelessly and weakly took the offence from their ignorance of Christian liberty, and the want of that charity which is not easily provoked and which thinketh no evil (he several times tacitly reflects upon them), but he directs his speech to the strong, because they were better able to bear the reproof, and to begin the reformation. For the further pressing of this rule, we may here observe two directions which have relation to it:–First, Let not then your good be evil spoken of (v. 16)– take heed of doing any thing which may give occasion to others to speak evil, either of the Christian religion in general, or of your Christian liberty in particular. The gospel is your good; the liberties and franchises, the privileges and immunities, granted by it, are your good; your knowledge and strength of grace to discern and use your liberty in things disputed are your good, a good which the weak brother hath not. Now let not this be evil spoken of. It is true we cannot hinder loose and ungoverned tongues from speaking evil of us, and of the best things we have; but we must not (if we can help it) give them any occasion to do it. Let not the reproach arise from any default of ours; as 1 Tim. iv. 12, Let no man despise thee, that is, do not make thyself despicable. So here, Do not use your knowledge and strength in such a manner as to give occasion to people to call it presumption and loose walking, and disobedience to God’s law. We must deny ourselves in many cases for the preservation of our credit and reputation, forbearing to do that which we rightly know we may lawfully do, when our doing it may be a prejudice to our good name; as, when it is suspicious and has the appearance of evil, or when it becomes scandalous among good people, or has any way a brand upon it. In such a case we must rather cross ourselves than shame ourselves. Though it be but a little folly, it may be like a dead fly, very prejudicial to one that is in reputation for wisdom and honour, Eccl. x. 1. We may apply it more generally. We should manage all our good duties in such a manner that they may not be evil spoken of. That which for the matter of it is good and unexceptionable may sometimes, by mismanagement, be rendered liable to a great deal of censure and reproach. Good praying, preaching, and discourse, may often, for want of prudence in ordering the time, the expression, and other circumstances to edification, be evil spoken of. It is indeed their sin who do speak evil of that which is good for the sake of any such circumstantial errors, but it is our folly if we give any occasion to do so. As we tender the reputation of the good we profess and practise, let us so order it that it may not be evil spoken of. Secondly, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God, v. 22. It is not meant of justifying faith (that must not be hid, but manifested by our works), but of a knowledge and persuasion of our Christian liberty in things disputed. “Hast thou clearness in such a particular? Art thou satisfied that thou mayest eat all meats, and observe all days (except the Lord’s day) alike? Have it to thyself, that is, enjoy the comfort of it in thy own bosom, and do not trouble others by the imprudent use of it, when it might give offence, and cause thy weak brother to stumble and fall.” In these indifferent things, though we must never contradict our persuasion, yet we may sometimes conceal it, when the avowing of it will do more hurt than good. Have it to thyself–a rule to thyself (not to be imposed upon others, or made a rule to them), or a rejoicing to thyself. Clearness in doubtful matters contributes very much to our comfortable walking, as it frees us from those scruples, jealousies, and suspicions, which those who have not such clearness are entangled in endlessly. Compare Gal. vi. 4, Let every man prove his own work, that is, bring it to the touchstone of the word and try it by that so exactly as to be well satisfied in what he does; and then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. Paul had faith in these things: I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself; but he had it to himself, so as not to use his liberty to the offence of others. How happy were it for the church if those that have a clearness in disputable things would be satisfied to have it to themselves before God, and not impose those things upon others, and make them terms of communions, than which nothing is more opposite to Christian liberty, nor more destructive both to the peace of churches and the peace of consciences. That healing method is not the less excellent for being common: in things necessary let there be unity, things unnecessary let there be liberty, and in both let there be charity, then all will be well quickly.–Have it to thyself before God. The end of such knowledge is that, being satisfied in our liberty, we may have a conscience void of offence towards God, and let that content us. That is the true comfort which we have before God. Those are right indeed that are so in God’s sight.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Him that is weak ( ). See on 1Cor 8:7-12; 1Cor 9:22; Rom 4:19.
Receive ye (). Present middle imperative (indirect), “take to yourselves.”
Yet not to doubtful disputations ( ). “Not for decisions of opinions.” Note (between, two or ) in both words. Discriminations between doubts or hesitations. For , see 1Cor 12:10; Heb 5:14 (only N.T. examples). For see Luke 2:35; Luke 24:38; Phil 2:14. The “strong” brother is not called upon to settle all the scruples of the “weak” brother. But each takes it on himself to do it.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
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 [] . Into fellowship. See on Mt 16:22. Doubtful disputations [ ] . 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.”
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Him that is weak in the faith,” (ton de asthenounta te pistei) “Now the one being (existing, or who is) weak in the faith,” weak or unstable regarding doctrinal matters, the system of teachings of Christ, who may not even understand that salvation is by faith first and last, not by media of any kind of works, 1Co 8:7; 1Co 8:9-12; 1Co 9:22.
2) “Receive ye,” (proslambanesthe) “You all receive,” of your own volition or will, be willing to receive into your fellowship. The church is a place to teach and establish believers in the faith. The church is -God’s indoctrination school for young weak Christians. The “church ye”, the congregation, not the preacher-ye, or a committee-ye, is to receive new members into her fellowship if they be saved, though weak in knowledge. It is true that the Lord adds to the church, but he has chosen to do it by means of voice or vote of members of each local group, Act 2:47; Act 10:47; Act 11:12.
3) “But not to doubtful disputations “ (me eis diokriseis dialogismon) “Not to, with reference to, judgments of thoughts”; The particular area of weakness discussed in this chapter concerns the eating of meats, herbs, and observance of certain holy days; If one is saved, professes Christ, he is to be received for baptism and into church fellowship, without regards to how much of the Bible he knows. It is the work of the church to teach her New members (the weak) to observe all things commanded of the Lord, Mat 28:18-20; Col 2:16; Rom 14:3; 2Pe 3:18. Members were not to dispute over points of mere scruple or preference, not specifically regulated in the Scriptures.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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. (413)
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. (414) 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. (415)
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.
(413) Some, as [ Haldane ], have found fault with this classification, as there is nothing in the chapter which countenances it. But as the Apostle’s object throughout the epistle was to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles, there is reason sufficient to regard them as the two parties here intended: and, as [ Chalmers ] justly observes, it is more probable that the Gentiles were the despisers, inasmuch as the Jews, who, like Paul, had got over their prejudices, were no doubt disposed to sympathize with their brethren, who were still held fast by them. — Ed.
(414) Non ad disceptationes quaestionum , μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν; “ non ad altercationes disceptationum — not for the altercations of disputings” or debatings, [ Beza ]; “not to debates about matter in doubt,” [ Doddridge ]; “not in order to the strifes of disputations,” [ Macknight ]. Both words are in the plural number; therefore to give the first the sense of “judging,” as [ Hodge ] does, cannot be right; for in that case it would have been in the singular number. The words may be rendered, “no for the solutions of doubts.” One of the meanings of the first word, according to [ Hesychius ], is διάλυσις — untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see Luk 24:38, and 1Ti 2:8. according to the frequent import of the preposition εἰς, the sentence may be thus paraphrased, “Him who is weak in the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts,” or, “debate in reasonings,” or, “contend in disputations.” — Ed.
(415) [ Scott ] ’s remarks on this verse are striking and appropriate, — “Notwithstanding,” he says, “the authority vested by Christ in his Apostles, and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind, differences of opinion prevailed even among real Christians; nor did St. Paul, by an express decision and command, attempt to put a final termination to them. A proposition indeed may be certain and important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due preparation of mind and heart; — so that a compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without conviction, would in general be hypocrisy, and entirely unavailing. So essential are the rights and existence of private judgment, in all possible cases, to the exercise of true religion! and so useless an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding controversies, and producing unanimity among Christians!”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CREED NOT ESSENTIAL TO CHURCH MEMBERSHIP
Rom 14:1
OUR Christian ears are often put to pain by reports of missionaries in certain heathen lands touching the treatment accorded to the weak among the natives. The cruel murder of children of the weaker sex; the criminal exposure to destruction of the sickly; the diseased and the deformed, and the heartless neglect of the decrepit aged are to us evidences of the lowest heathenism. We not only revolt from such deeds, but we hate the heathenism that permits and approves it. And yet, I am led to question sometimes, if in our churches we do not commit spiritual infanticide in our forgetfulness of the injunction of this text, Him that is weak in the faith receive ye? We like to have lusty children in the churchchildren of large faith from the firstand we are slow to accept weaklings into the households of our religious life.
It shall be my effort to show that according to Gods Word, creed is not the determining condition of church-membership; that the soul that is weak in the faith ought to be received into the organized body of baptized believers, in spite of its weakness, and made to feel especially welcome because of its weakness. And yet, I will not plead for a lower tone in church life, but for a higher instead.
CONVERSION IS AN ESSENTIAL TO CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP
I use the word with its weight in it. I mean by conversion all the experience passed through, all the change undergone, all the interests involved in turning away from the love and service of Satan to the love and service of the Saviour. Such a radical change is essential to church-membership.
Our best reason approves that necessity. What is a church? The best definition yet known is that very ancient one: A church is an organized body of baptized believers, and according to the root idea of the New Testament word, they are the called-out peoplethe people who have quit the world to answer Gods call. The word itself, therefore, argues that all church-men should be converted men. The man should be changed before he enters the church, as the church is not a charmed circle that has power to change those who come into it, but is a circle sacred to the uses of those whom Christ has changed, and called out of the lower, worldly life.
The term penitentiary, in its earlier uses, meant a place for penitents. But it became the custom to put into penitentiaries all classes of criminals, and so far perverted them from their original intention that they are nothing now but prisons. An old warden of the Ohio institution used to speak of the State Impenitentiary, because, said he, we seldom turn out any penitents. Everybody ought to know that it doesnt change the character of a man for good just to throw a wall about him and have him live in an enclosure of law and order, even though the wall be ecclesiastical, and the law and order Christian.
That revelation makes conversion a condition of church-membership, seems also clear. Even Nicodemusthe teacher of Israelwas not encouraged to become a professed disciple, and was distinctly given to understand that he could not enter the kingdom until he should experience that wondrous change. Other conditions are futile and meaningless while that one is wanting.
What does baptism avail when administered to the unconverted? What does a perfect familiarity with the catechism, or a word for word knowledge of the creed, amount to in his case whose heart is in rebellion against God? Mr. Spurgeon was brought up on catechisms and creeds, but his eyes were holden, and his soul distressed until he heard that primitive, pale Methodist preacher, who, seeing the young man enter the chapel at Colchester, fixed his eyes upon him and said, Young man, you are in trouble; you will never get out of it unless you look to Christ. Then raising his hands, as only a primitive Methodist minister could do, he cried aloud, Look! Look! Look! Before that hour the boy Spurgeon had been waiting to do fifty things, but when he found Christ at hand, his heart changed, the further steps into the church were few, and but for opposition would have been easy.
Conversion is not the only essential to church-membership, but evangelical Christians agree that it is an absolute condition, and easily the most important one. To require of applicants for church-membership that they be converted is not to meet them with a formidable creed. It is only asking them to come into the church after Christ has come into them. But in one sense it suggests creed, and ought. There is no Christianity without some phase of creed.
CREED IS A DETERMINING FACTOR IN CHARACTER
As he thinketh in his heart so is he. Paul never enjoined upon the Roman converts to receive a man with no faith, or any kind of a faith. Paul understood perfectly certain great principles of Christian conduct that are eternally patent.
Paul knew that a mans belief was the basis of his conduct. Weak faith never begets strong moral or spiritual behavior, and a false faith begets only irregularities and immoralities. Every mans conduct is an index of his conception of God. If he believes God to be indifferent to our behavior, indisposed to hold us accountable for evil deeds; an indulgent Judge who winks at evil and half sympathizes with its commission, his conduct will correspond to that conception.
Why is it that so many men behave so badly, disturbing the social order, violating law, defying justice, and damning their own souls and the souls of their fellows? Is it not, in great part, a consequence of what they believe about the mayor? If the conniving Mayor was impeached from office for his collusion with the wicked, his compromise at lawlessness, his friendship for the criminal classes, and a clean, moral, law-abiding and law-enforcing man was raised to the mayoralty, how differently the dangerous citizen would deport himself. He would say, It wont do now to run a gambling den wide open and rob ones fellows under the eaves of the City Hall. It wont do now to keep my blind pig loose in the alley. It wont do now to go on the public street and entice men from the shadow of a policeman into the shades of death and hell. Ive got to walk straight or else the authorities will make me smart. The same reasoning applies to the view men take of the Chief Officer of the universe. How often have I heard two of the chief robbers of a certain Building and Loan Association scout the idea that God is angry with the wicked every day; or that He will call men to strict account for the deeds done in the body. That Association went robbed and bankrupt. One objection to socialism is this: Its morals are as loose as its religious views are liberal. As he thinketh in his heart, so is he. Belief is the basis of conduct!
Better then admit to church-membership the weakest faith, if only it conforms, so far as it goes, to Gods Word, than to have the man of most pronounced convictions enter, if he brings his views from another source. Mr. Beecher said, It makes some difference what a man believes about charts. Suppose the ship-master should say, Here are three fathoms of water, and here are two, and here is one, but I do not believe it. I know that my ship draws sixteen feet of water, but I believe that I can run it over a twelve foot bar. Does it make no difference what he believes? It makes all the difference between shipwreck and safety. So, if any man wishes to stand before his fellows and tell them that it makes very little difference what a man believes, if only he is sincere, he may do it, but a minister should not be a party to such deception.
Keeping that in mind, we pass to the special plea of this text.
CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP LOOKS TO THE UPBUILDING OF CHARACTER RATHER THAN TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND ACCEPTANCE OF CREEDS
These Christians at Rome were about to despise that fact. Certain men who had well-defined views on the question of abstinence from meats, were ready to reject the application for membership, among them, of those who did not see the matter eye to eye. Paul wrote this text to teach them that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom 14:17). He taught that admission to membership could ask only the rudiments of true religion. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye. There are a good many people who need to have that lesson impressed afresh. There are denominations that are more solicitous to have their catechisms and their confessions familiarly known, than they are to find the applicant for membership convinced of Jesus saving power and love.
Mr. Spurgeon tells of a little girl who came before his board of deacons on one occasion and was questioned concerning her faith. She was timid and seldom made any answer, and when she did speak she stumbled in her replies and created the impression of a profound ignorance of what the brethren considered fundamentals of a Christian faith. At last they told her gently that they hardly thought she understood enough about Christianity to come into the church, and she had best wait. She arose to leave, but halting at the door she looked at the board a moment, and then burst into tears, saying, I dont care if I couldnt tell it; I know I love Him. The grand pastor said, Brethren, that knowledge is more important to church-membership than any possible familiarity with formulas of faith, and they called her back and voted unanimously to recommend her to the church.
There are individuals, also, who need to reflect upon the fact that the weakest spiritual infant is yet a rightful member of Gods household. The world has in it not a few people who have come into the kingdom by special routes, and through wonderful experiences, and they expect all others to come by the same way. In a former pastorate we had a certain woman in our church whose little daughter came to me and told me she loved Jesus and wanted to unite with the church, but her mother objected. I went to see the mother and found she was a very religious spirit, and was very solicitous to have this daughter a Christian, but didnt think her converted as yet. I asked her if the child loved Christ. Ah, yes! she replied, her love is wonderful, and she asks Christ to help her in everything. Then I inquired why shethe mother questioned the childs conversion, to which she replied, Why, she has never had any wonderful experience. The night I was converted the stars shone with the brightness of the sun and a beauty indescribable, and all nature seemed to know that God had accepted me as His child.
It may be a good thing to have a brilliant conversion, but it is better to start out into the Christian life crying, Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief, and grow from that beggarly beginning into a fuller consciousness of Gods love and power, than to have a conversion so wonderful that it changed the face of nature and became the hour of all hours in life, the climax of all experience, the glorious hour that threw a shadow on all succeeding hours, and set one singing that doleful verse,
Where is the blessedness I knew When first I saw the Lord?Where is the soul-refreshing view Of Jesus and His Word?
Do you have some faith in Christ? Do you find in your heart a little genuine love for the gracious Lord? Would it be a joy to begin obeying Him? Then dont let men or devils keep you out of the church, since to you,. Christ has made a special promise, A bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench (Mat 12:20).
It is the very function of the church to strengthen mens faith in God, and mens characters in Christ. It is to the new convert what the home is to the infant. It is the circle to teach him how to walk and talk, and think and act. It is the arena that offers opportunity and assistance to the development of all growing powers.
Not long since we heard of a young man who said to one of our members, I want to join your church; I think that the very best way to get into a good social circle. We sent word to him that he misunderstood the church, and that knowing his motive we could not encourage his purpose. But if that same one had come saying, I havent much faith, but I prize what I have, and I want to cultivate it by Christian association; I want to root myself more firmly by Christian fellowship; I want to grow in grace and develop a full, round character in Christ, the church doors should have swung wide, saying, You are welcome, my brother, and we are ready to baptize you.
The church is a hospital for the lame who need nursing into health. The church is a school for the ignorant who thirst for a larger knowledge of God and His Word. The church is Gods workhouse wherein growing souls come to the standard of the perfect man in Christ Jesus by the sweet exercise of service. If a man brings some faith, and some love, and some spirit of obedience into this circle of sunshine, it must flower and fruit if the man is in earnest and the church is a worthy one. His after brilliance or usefulness depends not so much upon his inherent power, as upon the touch of Christs transforming hand. He has taken many a poor fragment of a man, and so set him into new environments and filled him with a new spirit, that he shone like another John. The truth is, Christs Church is not a collection of superior specimens after the flesh, or even the mind, for that matter,
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in His presence (1Co 1:26-29).
The moral beauty and strength and grace of the Christian brotherhood is not due to the superior natural talents of the men and women that make it up, but to the transforming effect of Christs hand upon the souls that serve Him.
Macaulay relates that a poor apprentice picked up the pieces of stained glass that his master had thrown aside as worthless, and wrought them into a window that won more admiration than the renowned artists work. The cathedral builders seeing it, rejected the masters work and accepted the one of the poor apprentice instead.
Some one referring to that has said, The wisdom of this world made its painted window of the wise, the learned and the righteous, but the peasant Galilean became the architect of a new society. He rejected the noble and the wise, and taking up the fallen sons of men He has set them like diamonds to sparkle forever in the diadem of His glory.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
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. , 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 swines 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 Gods merciful disposition.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Rom. 14:1-4
The weak and the strong.St. Pauls 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 viewsmen 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 maids 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 earths 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 Christs for strength; let us be ambitious to be Christs 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 Gods imparted strength. The encircling strength of God embraces and empowers the weak and the strong. In ourselves we are all weak; in Gods grace, by the Spirits 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 opinionthe false notion that Gods 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 Pauls 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 lifee.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 anotherthe 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 Christs 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 Christianitynamely, the little helps as we pass on lifes 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 forto 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 Testamentthat, 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 natureonly 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 mans 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 wayas 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 itor in anythingthe mighty power of God.Kingsleys 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 worlds 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 negros 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.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Text
Rom. 14:1-12. But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for decision of scruples. Rom. 14:2 One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Rom. 14:3 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. Rom. 14:4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. Rom. 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. Rom. 14:6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Rom. 14:7 For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. Rom. 14:8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lords. Rom. 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Rom. 14:10 But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.
11
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow,
And every tongue shall confess to God.
12
So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.
REALIZING ROMANS, Rom. 14:1-12
568.
What is the meaning of the word receive in Rom. 14:1?
569.
How would one be received for decision of scruples?
570.
Someone must be right in this matter of eating. Who is it?
571.
Is strength or weakness in faith dependent upon knowledge? In what way?
572.
There is one mutual responsibility. What is it?
573.
How could God receive someone who was not correct in his views?
574.
Is Paul teaching irresistible grace in Rom. 14:4? Please explain the phrase, for the Lord hath power to make him stand.
575.
Could we apply the principle here stated to Christian baptism or the Lords Supper? Why?
576.
Should we esteem the Lords day as above all other days? How will the instruction here given apply if we do esteem Sunday?
577.
Why is it so important that we be fully assured in our own mind?
578.
Why should we feel the Lord has any interest in eating or days?
579.
How deeply grateful we should be to our Heavenly Father. In everything we should give thanks. How can we do this if there is a difference of opinion as to right or wrong?
580.
It is easy to see how none of us lives unto himself. How is it that none dieth unto himself?
581.
We belong to the Lord Jesus by right of purchase. It then becomes no matter of choice with us. How must we settle all questions?
582.
Christ is Lord of the dead according to Rom. 14:9. How is this so?
583.
Should we delay our judgment on all matters in favor of the final judgment of God? Explain.
584.
Are Christians going to stand before the judgment seat of God? If so, for what purpose?
585.
Does gossiping about the ignorance or frailties of our brethren constitute judging? Will we be judged for such action?
Paraphrase
Rom. 14:1-12. The Jewish Christian who is weak in the faith concerning meats and days, receive ye into your company, but not in order to passionate disputations concerning his opinions.
Rom. 14:2 The Gentile Christian, indeed, believeth that he may eat every kind of meat; but the Jewish Christian, who is weak in the faith, eats vegetables only in heathen countries, because he cannot find meats which he thinketh clean.
Rom. 14:3 Since both act from conscience, let not the Gentile who eateth every kind of meat, despise the Jew who eateth not certain kinds; and let not the Jew who eateth not certain kinds, condemn the Gentile who eateth all kinds: for God, by the spiritual gifts bestowed on the Gentile, declareth that he hath accepted him.
Rom. 14:4 Who art thou that condemnest anothers household servant? He is accountable to his own master, and not to thee; so that by his own masters sentence he must be acquitted or condemned: and he shall be acquitted; for God hath power to acquit him at the judgment, and will do it, if he hath acted conscientiously.
Rom. 14:5 With respect to days, the Jewish Christians, indeed, thinketh one day more holy than another; the new moons, for example, and sabbaths: but the Gentile Christian, better informed, thinketh every day alike holy, because the law of Moses is not the law of Christs kingdom. Let every one direct himself according to his own conviction.
Rom. 14:6 He who observeth the Jewish holy days, observeth them in obedience to Christ, who he thinks hath commanded them: He who doth not observe these days in obedience to Christ, he doth not observe them, knowing that Christ hath abolished them. He who eateth all kinds of meat indiscriminately, eateth them in obedience to Christ, who has permitted them to be eaten; for he giveth God thanks for them, in the persuasion that they are permitted; and he who eateth not every kind, in obedience to Christ he eatest them not, and showeth his persuasion that they are not permitted, by giving God thanks for the food he is allowed to eat.
Rom. 14:7 In thus declaring their subjection to Christ, both of them act properly: for none of us liveth by his own will, and none of us is allowed to die by his own will.
Rom. 14:8 But whether we live by the will of Christ: or whether we die, we die by the will of Christ. Whether we live therefore or die, we are Christs subjects; and should not, in religious matters, be guided either by our own will or by the will of others, but by his.
Rom. 14:9 To this implicit obedience from all he hath the completest title: for to this end Christ both died and rose, and liveth again in heaven, that he might rule and judge both the dead and the living.
Rom. 14:10 But thou Jew, why dost thou condemn thy Gentile brother, because he neglecteth the distinction of meats and days? Or thou Gentile also, why dost thou despise thy Jewish brother as a weak bigot, because he observeth these distinctions? In such matters we should not judge one another; for we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be judged by him.
Rom. 14:11 This was declared to the Jews long ago; For it is written, I have sworn myself, saith the Lord, the word is gone out of my mouth, and also, That unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear.
Rom. 14:12 Well, then, every one of us shall give an account concerning himself to God, whose indulgence to the sincere will make many ashamed of their harsh judgments.
354.
How does the discussion of the weak and strong relate to the renewing of the mind?
355.
Why not attempt to instruct the weak brother?
356.
What is meant by saying some matters are matters of indifference?
357.
Explain the phrase for the Lord hath power to make him stand (Rom. 14:4 b).
Summary
A brother who is weak in belief, and consequently narrow in his views, we are nevertheless cordially to accept, but in receiving him, we must let alone those thoughts of his which arise out of his weakness. Their correctness or incorrectness is not a question for our decision. And where one brother regards certain days as sacred, while another holds all days to be alike, the rule is to let each be fully satisfied in his own mind, and act accordingly. In this case, the strong who esteems every day alike, is not to despise the weak; nor is the weak, who thinks one day better than another, to judge the strong, The same rule applies also in the case of meats thought to be clean or unclean. In matters of indifference, each man is a law to himself, Accordingly, in such cases we must leave each to act out his own sense of right. And as to judging one another in such matters, we must wholly abstain from it. We are accountable to God only, and he will judge us.
Comment
Forbearance in Matters of Opinion for Those
Who are Weak in the Faith. Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:13.
1.
The weak in the faith should not be harshly judged. Rom. 14:1-12.
Once again we could say: if we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, here is a guide to our thinking. The Christian brother who feels a thing to be wrong and a sin for him to engage in, let him be. Do not argue with him about it. Receive him into your fellowship as a Christian brother. In particular, the reference Paul has in mind has to do with eating. There were those persons who did not have a complete knowledge of Gods will on this subject. They felt it would be wrong for them to eat meat. When you talk with him, says Paul, please do not invite him to your table at which you serve meat. On the other hand, the weak brother ought not to feel he has a superior type of righteousness and attempt to instruct you in the ways of the vegetarian. In all of this conversation between the two brothers, there is much more than mere discussion. The action of judgment also enters in when one says, I am right and you are wrong; therefore you are condemned. There are many matters of indifference, matters not wrong within themselves. Since each saint is responsible for a knowledge of the faith, (Jud. 1:3) and each member of the body is answerable to the head, who are we to judge our brother? To use the figure of Paul: This man does not work for you; he is employed by another, even the Lord. To whom then is he answerable? To his own master. If the Lord is pleased with him, who are you to be displeased? You may be displeased, but this must never enter into the area of judgment. It is not necessary for either of you to understand or see how each can stand in the day of judgment. God is able to make each do so by his own divine power and wisdom.
Now, as to special daysare we at liberty to insert the word special as related to days? I think not. We can infer that here is a discussion of the desire of certain Jewish Christians to put a special emphasis upon the seventh day and certain other days in the Jewish calendar. I do not believe that Pauls teachings uphold the observance of special days. When the Jewish law was abolished was not all responsibility toward holding one day above another also abolished? Is it not what we do on Sunday that is sacred rather than the day itself? At least there were some in the Roman church who felt every day was just alike, All days are the gifts of God. The observance of the Lords Supper on the first day of the week does not make the day (all twenty-four hours) holy; at least we have no word of scripture to say so. This will not at all be the opinion of some who read this. Very wellone regards all days alike because he feels it pleases the Lord, and one regards some days as special for the same reason. Let each mutually agree not to set the other at nought. There are two very important considerations for each Christian. However one regards the matters of indifference, let it be his opinion and not just the mouthing of someone elses reasoning. One must be fully assured in his own heart. The second is equally important. Whatever one does, do it unto the Lord. Let him thank God with sincerity for vegetables if he will not eat meat, thank God with sincerity if he observes Sunday (the day) as sacred. The opposite must also be true.
The great, eternal reason behind such conduct is found in verse seven. We are responsible to and for others. In our living we influence otherswe are not living an exclusive lifewe are constantly associated with others and in the presence of God. We should be careful so to live in eating and drinking and observing as to never put a stumbling block in our brothers path. There is one act which we shall all perform: we must all die; but even dying can be an example to others. Indeed it shall befor good or bad. We can read into this verse that we are responsible for the eternal destiny of the souls of our brothers and sisters. They will come up to death in about the same way you do. Will this be adequate? Are you ready to die? If you are not, and others are following you, are you not also responsible to and for them? Let us live in such a manner in all things that our life will a be true example of the preparation for death.
358.
Is Sunday a special day? In what respect?
359.
What is the meaning of the expressionLet each one be fully assured in his own heart.?
360.
What is the great, eternal reason behind our need for full assurance of faith?
Verse eight is the foundation on which this whole discussion (Rom. 14:1-7) rests. We live for the honor of Christ and we die for the honor of Christ; i.e., in such a manner as to bring him honor. This we do because we belong to him. Being the living property of another, we essentially have no will in the matter. Most especially is this true when we consider the circumstances of our purchase.
What a wonderful Lord we serve. He not only rules as king here, but also over those in eternity. We indeed belong to him for he ever lives. We are owned and ruled by him in heaven as well as on earth.
There is a question for the weak and the strong in Rom. 14:10. Paul asks the weak, Why do you judge your brother? He asks the strong, Why do you despise your brother? Paul also has an answer: We all shall appear before the judgment seat of God. This being true, why should we enter into the prerogatives of God? Since every inequality will be balanced, every question answered, why attempt it ourselves? Indeed, we sin when we do. The prophet Isaiah speaks of Gods lordship. It shall be enough to account for our sins on judgment day. Our brother rests in the hands of an all-wise God.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) Weak in the faith . . .The presence of a single strong master-motive is apt to silence petty scruples. Where the eye is singlewhere all the powers and faculties of the man are concentrated upon one object, and that object the highest that can engage human thought or affectionthere 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 14
RESPECT FOR SCRUPLES ( Rom 14:1 ) 14:1 Welcome the man who is weak in the faith, but not with a view to passing judgment on his scruples.
In this chapter Paul is dealing with what may have been a temporary and local problem in the Roman Church, but is also one continually confronting the Church and always demanding solution. In the Church at Rome there were apparently two lines of thought. There were some who believed that in Christian liberty the old tabus were gone; they believed that the old food laws were now irrelevant; they believed that Christianity did not consist in the special observance of any one day or days. Paul makes it clear that this in fact is the standpoint of real Christian faith. On the other hand, there were those who were full of scruples; they believed that it was wrong to eat meat; they believed in the rigid observance of the Sabbath tyranny. Paul calls the ultra-scrupulous man the man who is weak in the faith. What does he mean by that?
Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons.
(i) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom; he is at heart still a legalist and sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations.
(ii) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his heart he believes that he can gain God’s favour by doing certain things and abstaining from others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship with God, and has not yet accepted the way of grace, still thinking more of what he can do for God than of what God has done for him.
Paul bids the stronger brethren to welcome such a person and not to besiege him with continual criticisms.
This problem is not confined to the days of Paul. To this day in the Church there are two points of view. There is the more liberal which sees no harm in many things and is well content that many an innocent pleasure should go on within the Church. And there is the narrower point of view, which is offended at many things in which the liberal person sees no harm.
Paul’s sympathies are all with the broader point of view; but, at the same time, he says that when one of these weaker brethren comes into the Church he must be received with brotherly sympathy. When we are confronted with someone who holds the narrower view there are three attitudes we must avoid.
(i) We must avoid irritation. An impatient annoyance with such a person gets us nowhere. However much we may disagree, we must try to see the other person’s point of view and to understand it.
(ii) We must avoid ridicule. No man remains unwounded when that which he thinks precious is laughed at. It is no small sin to laugh at another man’s beliefs. They may seem prejudices rather than beliefs; but no man has a right to laugh at what some other holds sacred. In any event, laughter will never woo the other man to a wider view; it will only make him withdraw still more determinedly into his rigidity.
(iii) We must avoid contempt. It is very wrong to regard the narrower person as an old-fashioned fool whose views may be treated with contempt. A man’s views are his own and must be treated with respect. It is not even possible to win a man over to our position unless we have a genuine respect for his. Of all attitudes towards our fellow man the most unchristian is contempt.
Before we leave this verse, it should be noted that there is another perfectly possible translation. “Welcome the man who is weak in the faith, but do not introduce him straight away to the discussion of questions which can only raise doubts.” There are some people whose faith is so strong that no amount of debate and questioning will really shake it. But there are others who have a simple faith which is only needlessly disturbed by clever discussion.
It may well be that our own age is overfond of discussion for discussion’s sake. It is fatal to give the impression that Christianity consists of nothing but a series of questions under debate. “We have found,” said G. K. Chesterton, “all the questions that can be found. It is time we stopped looking for questions and started looking for answers.” “Tell me of your certainties,” said Goethe, “I have doubts enough of my own.” There is one good rule which should guide the progress of any discussion, even if it has been a bewildered discussion, and even if it has been discussing questions to which there is no real answer, it should always finish with an affirmation. There may be many questions left unanswered, but there must be some certainty left unshaken.
TOLERANCE FOR ANOTHER’S POINT OF VIEW ( Rom 14:2-4 ) 14:2-4 One man has enough faith to believe that he can eat anything; but he who is weak in the faith eats vegetables. Let not him who eats contemptuously despise him who does not eat; and let not him who does not eat pass censorious judgment on him who does eat, for God has received him. Who are you to judge another man’s servant? It is in his own master’s judgment that he stands or falls–and he will stand, for the Master is able to make him stand.
Here emerges one of the definite points of debate in the Roman Church. There were those who observed no special food laws and tabus at all, and who ate anything; and there were those who conscientiously abstained from meat, and ate only vegetables. There were many sects and religions in the ancient world which observed the strictest food laws. The Jews themselves did. Lev 11:1-47 gives its lists of the creatures which may and which may not be eaten. One of the strictest sects of the Jews was the Essenes. They had communal meals for which they bathed and wore special clothes. The meals had to be specially prepared by priests or they would not eat them. The Pythagoreans had their distinctive food laws. Pythagoras taught that the soul of man was a fallen deity confined to the body as to a tomb. He believed in reincarnation through which the soul might dwell in a man, an animal, or a plant in an endless chain of being. Release from this chain of being was found through absolute purity and discipline; and this discipline included silence, study, self-examination and abstention from all flesh. In almost any Christian congregation there would be those who observed special food laws and tabus.
It is the same problem. Within the Church there was a narrower party and there was a more liberal party. Paul unerringly pinpoints the danger that was likely to arise. Almost certainly the more liberal party would despise the scruples of the narrower party; and, still more certainly, the narrower party would pass censorious judgment on what they believed to be the laxity of the more liberal party. That situation is just as real and perilous in the Church today as it was in the time of Paul.
To meet it Paul lays down a great principle. No man has any right to criticize another man’s servant. The servant is answerable to his master alone. Now all men are the servants of God. It is not open to us to criticize them, still less to condemn them. That right belongs to God alone. It is not in our judgment that a man stands or falls but in his. And, Paul goes on, if a man is honestly living out his principles as he sees them, God can make him able to stand.
Many a congregation of the Church is torn in two because those who hold broader views are angrily contemptuous of those whom they regard as die-hard conservatives; and because those who are stricter in their outlook are censorious of those who wish the right to do things which they think are wrong. It is not open to us to condemn each other. “I beseech you by the bowels of Christ,” said Cromwell to the rigid Scots of his day, “think it possible that you may be mistaken.” We must banish both censoriousness and contempt from the fellowship of the Church. We must leave the judgment of others to God, and seek only to sympathize and to understand.
A DIFFERENT ROAD TO THE SAME GOAL ( Rom 14:5-6 ) 14:5-6 One man rates one day beyond another; one regards all days alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. The man who observes a particular day observes it to the Lord. The man who eats, eats to the Lord, for he says his grace. The man who does not eat, does not eat to the Lord, for he too says his grace to God.
Paul introduces another point on which narrower and more liberal people may differ. The narrower people make a great deal of the observance of one special day. That was indeed a special characteristic of the Jews. More than once Paul was worried about people who made a fetish of observing days. He writes to the Galatians: “You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years: I am afraid I have laboured over you in vain” ( Gal 4:10-11). He writes to the Colossians: “Let no man pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ” ( Col 2:16-17). The Jews had made a tyranny of the sabbath, surrounding it with a jungle of regulations and prohibitions. It was not that Paul wished to wipe out the Lord’s Day–far from it; but he did fear an attitude which in effect believed that Christianity consisted in observing one particular day.
There is far more to Christianity than Lord’s Day observance. When Mary Slessor spent three lonely years in the bush she frequently got the days mixed up because she had no calendar. “Once she was found holding her services on a Monday, and again on Sunday she was discovered on the roof, hammering away, in the belief that it was Monday!” No one is going to argue that Mary Slessor’s services were any less valid because they were held on Monday, or that she was in any sense breaking the commandment because she was working on the Sunday. Paul would never have denied that the Lord’s Day is a precious day, but he would have been equally insistent that not even it must become a tyranny, still less a fetish. It is not the day that we ought to worship, but him who is the Lord of all days.
In spite of all that, Paul pleads for sympathy between the narrower and the more liberal brethren. His point is that, however different their practice may be, their aim is the same. In their different attitude to days, both believe that they are serving God; when they sit down to eat, the one cats meat and the other does not, but both say their grace to God. We do well to remember that. If I am trying to get from Glasgow to London there are many routes I may use. I could in fact get there without traversing one half mile of road that another man might use. It is Paul’s plea that the common aim should unite us and the differing practice should not be allowed to divide us.
But he insists on one thing. Whatever course a man chooses, let him be fully convinced in his own mind. His actions should be dictated not by convention, still less by superstition, but altogether by conviction. He should not do things simply because other people do them; he should not do them because he is governed by a system of semi-superstitious tabus; he should do them because he has thought them out and reached the conviction that for him at least they are the right things to do.
Paul would have added something else to that–no man should make his own practice the universal standard for all other people. This, in fact, is one of the curses of the Church. Men are so apt to think that their way of worship is the only way. T. R. Glover somewhere quotes a Cambridge saying: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might–but remember that someone thinks differently.” We would do well to remember that, in a great many matters, it is a duty to have our own convictions, but it is an equal duty to allow others to have theirs without regarding them as sinners and outcasts.
THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ISOLATION ( Rom 14:7-9 ) 14:7-9 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Whether we live or die we belong to the Lord. It was for this purpose that Christ died and rose to life again–that he might be the Lord of the dead and of the living.
Paul lays down the great fact that it is impossible in the nature of things to live an isolated life. There is no such thing in this world as a completely detached individual. That, in fact, is doubly true. “Man,” said Macneile Dixon, “has an affair with the gods and an affair with the mortals.” No man can disentangle himself either from his fellow men or from God.
In three directions a man cannot disentangle himself from his fellow men.
(i) He cannot isolate himself from the past. No man is self-made. “I am a part,” said Ulysses, “of all that I have met.” A man is a receiver of a tradition. He is an amalgam of all that his ancestors made him. True, he himself does something to that amalgam; but he does not start from nothing. For weal or for woe, he starts with what all the past has made him. The unseen cloud of witnesses do not only compass him about; they dwell within him. He cannot dissociate himself from the stock from which he springs and from the rock from which he is hewn.
(ii) He cannot isolate himself from the present. We live in a civilization which is daily binding men more and more closely together. Nothing a man does affects only himself. He has the terrible power of making others happy or sad by his conduct; he has the still more terrible power of making others good or bad. From every man goes out an influence which makes it easier for others to take the high way or the low way. From every man’s deeds come consequences which affect others more or less closely. A man is bound up in the bundle of life, and from that bundle he cannot escape.
(iii) He cannot isolate himself from the future. As a man receives life so he hands life on. He hands on to his children a heritage of physical life and of spiritual character. He is not a self-contained individual unit; he is a link in a chain. Someone tells of a youth, who lived carelessly, who began to study biology. Through a microscope he was watching certain of these living things that you can actually see living and dying and begetting others in a moment of time. He rose from the microscope. “Now I see it,” he said. “I am a link in the chain, and I will not be a weak link any more.” It is our terrible responsibility that we leave something of ourselves in the world by leaving something of ourselves in others. Sin would be a far less terrible thing if it affected only a man himself. The terror of every sin is that it starts a new train of evil in the world.
Still less can a man disentangle himself from Jesus Christ.
(i) In this life Christ is forever a living presence. We do not need to speak of living as if Christ saw us; he does see us. All life is lived in his eye. A man can no more escape from the risen Christ than he can from his shadow. There is no place where he can leave Christ behind, and there is nothing which he can do unseen.
(ii) Not even death breaks that presence. In this world we live in the unseen presence of Christ; in the next we shall see him in his visible presence. Death is not the chasm that ends in obliteration; it is the gateway that leads to Christ.
No human being can follow a policy of isolation. He is bound to his fellow men and to Christ by ties that neither time nor eternity can break. He can neither live nor die to himself.
MEN UNDER JUDGMENT ( Rom 14:10-12 ) 14:10-12 Who are you to judge your brother in anything? Or, who are you contemptuously to despise your brother? For we shall all stand at God’s judgment seat; for it stands written: “As I live, God says, every knee shall bow to me. and every tongue shall confess its faith to God.” So, then, each of us shall render account to God for himself.
There is one basic reason why we have no right to judge anyone else; and that is that we ourselves are men under judgment. It is the very essence of humanity that we are not the judges but the judged. To prove his point Paul quotes Isa 45:23.
This was indeed a thought with which any Jew would agree. There was a rabbinic saying: “Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast born. and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed is he.” The only person who has the right to judge anyone is God; the man who stands at the bar of God’s judgment has no right to judge a fellow who also stands at that bar.
Just before this Paul has been thinking of the impossibility of the isolated life. But there is one situation in which a man is isolated, and that is when he stands before the judgment seat of God. In the old days of the Roman Republic, in the corner of the Forum farthest from the Capitol stood the tribunal, the judgment seat, where the Praetor Urbanus had sat dispensing justice. When Paul wrote, Roman justice required more than one judgment seat; and so in the great basilicas, the colonnaded porches around the Forum, the magistrates sat dispensing justice. The Roman well knew the sight of a man standing before the judge’s judgment seat.
That is what happens to every man; and it is a judgment which he must face alone. Sometimes in this world he can make use of the merits of someone else. Many a young man has been spared some penalty for the sake of his parents; many a husband has been given mercy for the sake of his wife or child; but in the judgment of God a man stands alone. Sometimes, when a great one dies, the coffin lies in front of the mourning congregation, and, on the top of it, there is arranged the gowns of his academic honours, or the insignia of his state dignities; but he cannot take them with him. Naked we come into the world, and naked we leave it. We stand before God in the awful loneliness of our own souls; to him we can take nothing but the character which in life we have been building up.
Yet that is not the whole truth. We do not stand alone at the judgment seat of God, for we stand with Jesus Christ. We do not need to go stripped of everything; we may go clad in the merits that are his. Collin Brooks, writer and journalist, writes in one of his books: “God may be kinder than we think. If he cannot say, ‘Well done! good and faithful servant,’ it may be that he will say at last, ‘Don’t worry, my bad and faithless servant: I don’t altogether dislike you.'” That was a man’s whimsical way of stating his faith; but there is more to it than that. It is not that God merely does not dislike us; it is that, sinners as we are, he loves us for the sake of Jesus Christ. True, we must stand before God’s judgment seat in the naked loneliness of our own souls; but, if we have lived with Christ in life, we shall stand with him in death, and before God he will be the advocate to plead our cause.
A MAN AND HIS NEIGHBOUR’S CONSCIENCE ( Rom 14:13-16 ) 14:13-16 So, then, let us stop passing judgment on each other, and rather let this be our only judgment–the determination not to put any hindrance or stumbling block in our brother’s way. I know this, and I am firmly convinced of it in the Lord Jesus Christ that there is nothing in itself which is unclean. All the same, if anyone thinks that anything is unclean, it is unclean to him. If your brother is grieved by something which you eat, you are no longer conducting yourself according to the principle that love lays down. Do not bring ruin by what you eat to that man for whom Christ died.
The Stoics used to teach that there were a great many things which they called adiaphora, that is, indifferent. In themselves they were quite neutral, neither good nor bad. The Stoics put it this way–it all depends by what handle you pick them up. Now that is profoundly true. To a student of art, a certain picture might be a work of art, to someone else an obscene drawing. To one group of people a discussion might be an interesting and stimulating and mind-kindling experience, to someone else a succession of heresies, and even blasphemies. An amusement, a pleasure, a pastime might seem to one quite permissible, and to another prohibited. More, there are pleasures which are quite harmless to one man, which can, in fact, be the ruin of another. The thing itself is neither clean nor unclean; its character is determined by the person who sees it or does it.
That is what Paul is getting at here. There are certain things which a man strong in the faith may see no harm in doing; but, if a person with a more narrow outlook saw him doing them, his conscience would be shocked; and if such a person were persuaded to do them himself his conscience would be outraged. We may take a very simple example. One man will genuinely see no harm in playing some outdoor game on Sunday, and he may be right; but another man’s conscience is shocked at such a thing, and, if he were persuaded to take part in it, all the time he would have the haunting feeling that he was doing wrong.
Paul’s advice is clear. It is a Christian duty to think of everything, not as it affects ourselves only, but also as it affects others. Note that Paul is not saying that we must always allow our conduct to be dictated by the views of others; there are matters which are essentially matters of principle, and in them a man must take his own way. But a great many things are neutral and indifferent; a great many things are neither in themselves good or bad; a great many things are not essential parts of life and conduct but belong to what we might call the extras of life. It is Paul’s conviction that in regard to such things we have no right to give offence to the more scrupulous brother by doing them ourselves, or by persuading him to do them.
Life must be guided by the principle of love; and when it is, we will think, not so much of our right to do as we like as of our responsibilities to others. We have no right to distress another man’s conscience in the things which do not really matter. Christian freedom must never be used as an excuse for rough-riding over the genuine feelings of others. No pleasure is so important that it can justify bringing offence and grief, and even ruin, to others. Augustine used to say that the whole Christian ethic could be summed up in a saying: “Love God, and do what you like.” In a sense it is true; but Christianity consists not only in loving God; it consists also in loving our neighbour as ourselves.
THE PERIL OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM ( Rom 14:17-20 ) 14:17-20 Do not allow that good gift of freedom which you possess to become a thing which gets you into disrepute. For the Kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but of righteousness and peace and joy, which are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. For the man who rules his life by this principle, and so becomes the slave of Christ, is well-pleasing to God and approved by men. So, then, let it be the things that make for peace that we pursue, and the things which build up one another. Do not destroy God’s work for the sake of food. True, all things are pure; but it is wrong for a man to make life’s road more difficult for someone else through what he eats.
In essence, Paul is here dealing with the peril and the abuse of Christian freedom. To a Jew, Christian freedom has its dangers. All his life he had been compassed about by a multiplicity of rules and regulations. So many things were unclean and so many were clean. So many animals might not be eaten; so many purity laws must be observed. When the Jew came into Christianity he found that all the petty rules and regulations were abolished at one stroke, and the danger was that he might interpret Christianity as a freedom to do exactly as he liked. We must remember that Christian freedom and Christian love go hand in hand; we must hold fast to the truth that Christian freedom and brotherly love are bound up together.
Paul reminds his people that Christianity does not consist in eating and drinking what one likes. It consists in three great things, all of which are essentially unselfish things.
There is righteousness, and this consists in giving to men and to God what is their due. Now the very first thing that is due to a fellow man in the Christian life is sympathy and consideration; the moment we become a Christian the feelings of the other man become more important than our own; Christianity means putting others first and self last. We cannot give a man what is due to him and do what we like.
There is peace. In the New Testament peace does not mean simply absence of trouble; it is not a negative thing, but is intensely positive; it means everything that makes for a man’s highest good. The Jews themselves often thought of peace as a state of right relationships between man and man. If we insist that Christian freedom means doing what we like, that is precisely the state we can never attain. Christianity consists entirely in personal relationships to man and to God. The untrammelled freedom of Christian liberty is conditioned by the Christian obligation to live in a right relationship, in peace, with our fellow men.
There is joy. Christian joy can never be a selfish thing. It does not consist in making ourselves happy; it consists in making others happy. A so-called happiness which made someone else distressed would not be Christian. If a man, in his search for happiness, brings a hurt heart and a wounded conscience to someone else, the ultimate end of his search will be, not joy, but sorrow. Christian joy is not individualistic; it is interdependent. Joy comes to the Christian only when he brings joy to others, even if it costs him personal limitation.
When a man follows this principle he becomes the slave of Christ. Here is the essence of the matter. Christian freedom means that we are free to do, not what we like, but what Christ likes. Without Christ a man is a slave to his habits, his pleasures, his indulgences. He is not really doing what he likes. He is doing what the things which have him in their grip make him do. Once the power of Christ enters into him he is master of himself, and then, and only then, real freedom enters his life. Then he is free not to treat men and not to live life as his own selfish human nature would have him do; he is free to show to all men the same attitude of love as Jesus showed.
Paul ends by setting out the Christian aim within the fellowship. (a) It is the aim of peace; the aim that the members of the fellowship should be in a right relationship with each other. A church where there is strife and contention, quarrels and bitterness, divisions and breaches, has lost all right to the name of church. It is not a fragment of the Kingdom of Heaven; it is simply an earthbound society. (b) It is the aim of upbuilding. The picture of the church as a building runs through the New Testament. The members are stones within the building. Anything which loosens the fabric of the church is against God; anything which makes that fabric stronger and more secure is of God.
The tragedy is that in so many cases it is little unimportant things which disturb the peace of the brethren, matters of law and procedure and precedent and prestige. A new age would dawn in the Church if we remembered that our rights are far less important than our obligations, if we remembered that, while we possess Christian liberty, it is always an offence to use it as if it conferred upon us the right to grieve the heart and conscience of someone else. Unless a church is a body of people who, in love, consider one another it is not a church at all.
RESPECT FOR THE WEAKER BROTHER ( Rom 14:21-23 ) 14:21-23 It is the fine thing neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything which makes the road more difficult for your brother to walk. As far as you yourselves are concerned you have enough faith to know that these things do not matter–well, then, let that be a matter between yourself and God. Happy is the man who never has cause to condemn himself for doing what he has come to the conclusion it was right to do. But he who has doubts about eating something stands condemned if he does eat it, because his decision to eat is not the result of faith.
We are back at the point that what is right for one man may be the ruin of another. Paul’s advice is very practical.
(i) He has advice for the man who is strong in the faith. That man knows that food and drink make no difference. He has grasped the principle of Christian freedom. Well, then, let that freedom be something between him and God. He has reached this stage of faith; and God knows well that he has reached it. But that is no reason why he should flaunt his freedom in the face of the man who has not yet reached it. Many a man has insisted on the rights of his freedom, and then had cause to regret that he ever did so when he sees the consequences.
A man may come to the conclusion that his Christian freedom gives him a perfect right to make a reasonable use of alcohol; and, as far as he is concerned, it may be a perfectly safe pleasure, from which he runs no danger. But it may be that a younger man who admires him is watching him and taking him as an example. And it may also be that this younger man is one of these people to whom alcohol is a fatal thing. Is the older man to use his Christian freedom to go on setting an example which may well be the ruin of his young admirer? Or is he to limit himself, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the one who follows in his footsteps?
Surely conscious limitation for the sake of others is the Christian thing. If a man does not exercise it, he may well find that something that he genuinely thought to be permissible has brought ruin to someone else! It is surely better to make this deliberate limitation than to have the remorse of knowing that what one demanded as a pleasure has become death to someone else. Again and again, in every sphere of life, the Christian is confronted with the fact that he must examine things, not only as they affect himself, but also as they affect other people. A man is always in some sense his brother’s keeper, responsible, not only for himself, but for everyone who comes into contact with him. “His friendship did me a mischief,” said Burns of the older man he met in Irvine as he learned the art of flax-dressing. God grant that none may say that of us because we misused the glory of Christian freedom!
(ii) Paul has advice for the man who is weak in the faith, the man with the over-scrupulous conscience. This man may disobey or silence his scruples. He may sometimes do something because everyone else is doing it and he does not wish to be different. He may do it because he does not wish to court ridicule or unpopularity. Paul’s answer is that if a man defies his conscience he is guilty of sin. If a man believes a thing to be wrong, then, if he does it, for him it is sin. A neutral thing becomes a right thing only when it is done out of the real, reasoned conviction that it is right. No man is the keeper of another man’s conscience, and each man’s conscience, in things indifferent, must be the arbiter for him of what is right or wrong.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But him who is weak in faith receive you, (yet) not to disputes about scruples.’
He calls on the Roman Christians to be ready to receive any who were ‘weak in faith’, but not in order to argue with them about unnecessary scruples. What they were to do was seek to strengthen each other’s faith in Christ, not undermine each other’s faith over secondary matters. And he deals with two matters which were clearly urgent, and which are of some interest to Christians today. The first dealing with the question of what Christians should not eat, and the second dealing with the observance of a special day to the LORD.
‘Weak in faith.’ That is, they were not strong enough to make the complete break from Judaism. They had not yet realised that in His coming the Messiah had replaced the Old Testament rituals by being their fulfilment. The phrase does not mean that the faith of such believers in Christ was weak, only that their cautious approach indicated that they were not as strong as Paul in breaking free from the past. Their faith could not cope with the idea of Messiah’s people being free from the traditions of the past. They themselves still felt themselves as bound by those traditions, and they saw them as binding on others. Some would see them as binding on Jewish Christians. Others would see them as binding on all Christians. Thus their faith in the Messiah, however strong it was, was not sufficient to enable them to recognise that He had delivered them from all these things. And they thus often passed judgment on those who failed to fall into line.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Christian Freedom To Be Tempered By Consideration For Their Brothers And Sisters With Regard To Food Fetishes And Sabbath Observance (14:1-23).
Paul now deals with the question of whether to observe a special day to the LORD, and what should be their attitude towards foods. Jesus had declared that He was Lord of the Sabbath (Mar 2:28), and that only what came out of a man (sin) could render him unclean, not what entered into him (Mar 7:15). And Mark had taken this to mean that by it He declared all foods clean (Mar 7:19). It would appear that Paul held the same position (Rom 14:14), but did not want to make a big issue out of it. He therefore stresses the need for tolerance.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Call To Make Real In The Church And In The World The Righteousness Which They Have Received (12:1-15:33).
This section moves from the indicative to the imperative. Having outlined the ways of God in salvation:
in applying to His people the righteousness of Christ (Rom 3:24 to Rom 4:25),
in uniting them with Christ in His death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-11),
in making them righteous within by His Spirit (Rom 8:1-18),
and in having demonstrated God’s sovereign activity in the world which has resulted in a new olive tree composed of both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9:6 to Rom 11:32),
Paul now calls on all Christians as a consequence (‘by the mercies of God’) to totally consecrate themselves to God’s service. It is an urgent call to action in response to what God has done for them. He is calling on them to live out the ‘newness of life’ (Rom 6:3) that they have received, something which will result in:
their consecration of themselves to God (Rom 12:1-2).
their commitment to help each other (Rom 12:3-8).
their living of a consistent Christian life before outsiders (Rom 12:9-21).
their having a right attitude towards the powers that be (Rom 13:1-7).
their responsibility to reveal the love of Christ through them (Rom 13:8-10).
and their living in the light of the urgency of the times (Rom 13:11-14).
We must not see these chapters as simply moral instruction added on to the main letter, but as in integral part of the letter. They describe the behaviour that will result from following the mind of the Spirit. Without them that would have been incomprehensible to many of them. And we should note how similar exhortation has been made earlier (Rom 6:12-23). Here, however, that is expanded on.
The section may be divided up as follows:
1). Christian Living (12:1-13:14).
A call to total consecration (Rom 12:1-2).
Each member to play his appropriate part in building up Christ’s body (Rom 12:3-8).
A call to fulfil the Law of Christ (Rom 12:9-21).
The Christian’s attitude towards the state (Rom 13:1-7).
The Christian’s responsibility to love (Rom 13:8-10).
Living in crisis days (Rom 13:11-14).
2). Christian Freedom And Consideration For The Views Of Others (14:1-15:6).
Christian freedom to be tempered by consideration for the brethren with regard to food fetishes and sabbath observance (Rom 14:1-23).
The strong should help the weak, and unity must be foremost (Rom 15:1-6).
3). The Ministry Of The Messiah Is To Both Jews And Gentiles (15:7-33).
Christ made a minister of circumcision in order to confirm the promises to the Jews and reach out with mercy to the Gentiles (Rom 15:7-13).
The extent and focal point of Paul’s own ministry to the Gentiles as a minister of the Messiah Jesus to the Gentiles (Rom 15:14-21).
His aim to visit Rome after he has ministered to Jewish believers in taking the contributions of the Gentile churches to the churches in Jerusalem, in view of which he requests prayer that he may be delivered form the hands of antagonistic Jews (Rom 15:22-33).
4). Final Greetings (16:1-27).
Final greetings and exhortations (Rom 16:1-16).
Exhortation to beware of those who divide the church and of the need to be wise to what is good, with the assurance that God will cause them to triumph against Satan’s deceitfulness (Rom 16:17-20).
Greetings from fellow-labourers in the Gospel (Rom 16:21-23).
Final ascription of praise to God for His faithfulness and ability to establish His people in the light of the mystery of the Gospel now revealed (Rom 16:24-27).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2). Christian Freedom And Consideration For The Views Of Others (14:1-15:6).
Having laid down the principles of Christian living, Paul now moves on to what he clearly conceives of as a problem in the Roman church, the problem of disagreement on the question of religious observance. Such disagreement was inevitable. The Roman church was very much a mixture of people from many religious backgrounds, who had brought with them certain ideas about religious observance, and it especially included a large number of Jews and Jewish sympathisers, many of whom were probably still connected with the synagogue. That this latter meant that relationships between Christians and Jews in Rome were reasonably cordial, so that Christians were not necessarily seen as contrary to Judaism, comes out in the fact that later the leading Jewish elders were quite content to meet with Paul on his arrival in Rome so as to hear what he had to say (Act 28:17-24; Act 28:29). They still saw Christianity as a sect of Judaism (Act 28:22). But it did mean that the Jewish Christians conformed to the norms of Judaism with respect to clean and unclean foods, and with respect to the Sabbath and to feasts.
The certain consequence would be that many Roman Christians considered the observance of the Sabbath and the observance of Jewish feasts as binding on them, together with the Jewish food laws in respect of cleanness and uncleanness. It was true that the gathering of leading Jewish Christians in Jerusalem described in Acts 15 had given concessions on these matters to Gentile Christians, but these had not been given to Jewish Christians, and even then for Gentile Christians they had stipulated abstention from eating things sacrificed to idols, from eating blood, and from eating things strangled (Act 15:29). Thus it appears that in Rome there would be many carrying out Judaistic practises.
That the minority involved in what he is describing were of some considerable size comes out in the importance that Paul places on the subject. He clearly saw it as something that could divide the church. This again points to Jewish practises being in mind. While it is perfectly true that on top of this there might be others, such as Pythagoreans, who had their own reasons for vegetarianism (the avoidance of eating what they saw as having a living soul), and converts from other religions who saw certain days as ‘unlucky’, there can really be no doubt that it was aspects of Judaism which were mainly in mind. They themselves saw the laws of uncleanness and the Sabbath as marks of distinction, distinguishing them from the rest of mankind, and Paul the former Pharisee could hardly have referred to unclean meat and the observance of a special day to a church containing as many Jewish Christians as the Roman church did without either signifying them, or making a careful distinction between them and what he was describing. As he did not do the latter we must assume the former. We should in regard to these things recognise that ‘the church of the Romans’ was, like churches in all the big cities in those days, divided up into groups meeting in various parts of the city. And they would have had many different flavours. Thus that Paul addressed the whole church on the subject in such detail suggests that many in those church groups were affected by the issue, and they would contain many Jewish Christians.
Paul was apparently not concerned about abstinence from unclean foods and observance of the Sabbath, as long as such things were not made ‘necessary for salvation’. As long as it did not interfere with their loyalty to Christ he was willing to accept such differences. What he was concerned about, however, was that the church should not be divided over the issue. And he desired not only harmony, but also a position of mutual respect between the parties concerned. It is this that he now goes about enforcing.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Practical Applications of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Our Everyday Lives After Paul declares the Gospel in the first eleven chapters, he devotes rest of the chapters to the practical application of the Gospel in the life of the individual. This two-fold aspect of doctrinal and practical teachings is typical of the Pauline epistles. Rom 1:16-17 serves as a summary of the Gospel of Jesus, which Paul spends much of this Epistle expanding upon. These are the key verses of the book of Romans in which Paul declares the power of the Gospel, revealing God’s plan of redemption for mankind. The Almighty God will affect His purpose and plan for man through the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He will spend the first eleven chapters show to us God’s role in bringing about this Plan of Redemption to mankind. He will take the rest of his Epistle teach us our role in supporting this plan in the societies that each of us live in, as we apply the Gospel to our relationships with others.
Paul explains how believers, both Jews and Gentiles, are united as one body in Christ (Rom 12:1-8). The Church is also united within a society, so that this obligates us to social duties with our fellow man (Rom 12:9-21). The Church is also related to the government of that society. Therefore, it has civil duties in relation to its leaders (Rom 13:1-7). These civil duties do not conflict with the Mosaic Law found within Scripture. In fact, these principles are found within the Law (Rom 13:8-10). Paul then exhorts the church at Rome to treat one’s fellow believer with love as an example to the society and government in which they live (Rom 13:11 to Rom 15:13). Christ’s eminent return is reason enough to follow Paul’s exhortations (Rom 13:11-14). He takes a special problem, which is foods, to show the believers how to work together despite their differences (Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13). Thus, we see in a nutshell how to apply the Gospel in our relationship to the Church, to society in general, to governmental authorities, and finally to individual believers. We see that the Church is structured within the society, which is structured under a ruling government. Within this structure, the believers are to be an example of love in how they treat one another so that the society of unbelievers may see the love of God. This is how the Gospel is taken to a nation, which is the third and supporting theme of Romans.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. The Gospel in Relation to One Body in Christ Rom 12:1-8
2. The Gospel in Relation to Social Duties Rom 12:9-21
3. The Gospel in Relation to Civil Duties Rom 13:1-7
4. The Gospel in Relation to the Law Rom 13:8-10
5. The Gospel in Relation to Other Believers Rom 13:11 to Rom 15:13
Application of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Living Sacrifices – Paul now leaves the doctrinal teachings found in the first major part of this epistle (1-11) and moves into exhortations on how to apply these divine doctrines to daily life (12-15). After having explained how God is still working in the nation of Israel as well as the Church to fulfill all things according to His election through divine foreknowledge, Paul first calls them all, both Jewish and Gentile converts in the church at Rome, to unity in the body of Christ (Rom 12:1-8). They are also to conduct themselves in the love of God towards the society in which they live (Rom 12:9-21), knowing that they are a light to the world and God wants to redeem all men. Although the Jews in Rome as well as in Palestine were considered troublesome by Roman officials, Paul exhorts the Church at Rome to set themselves as examples of respectable citizens by being submission to government authority (Rom 13:1-7). In doing this, they are not breaking the Mosaic Laws, but rather fulfilling them (Rom 13:8-10). Paul then writes a lengthy passage to the church at Rome discussing particular issues that explain how to walk in love among themselves, in light of the fact that the Day of the Lord’s Return is near (Rom 13:11 to Rom 15:13).
Since Rom 12:1-2 command us to give ourselves to God as a servant, the following passages show us how to give ourselves to God as a living sacrifice. Rom 13:14 seems to summarize these two verses, since it is a closing verse to these two chapters.
Rom 13:14, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”
Romans 12-15 serve to show how the believers in Rome could offer themselves as a living sacrifice; in their relationships with one another, with society and under government authorities.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Gospel in Relation to Other Believers – Paul then exhorts the church at Rome to treat one’s fellow believer with love as an example to the society and government in which they live (Rom 13:11 to Rom 15:13). Christ’s eminent return is reason enough to follow Paul’s exhortations (Rom 13:11-14). He takes a special problem, which is foods, to show the believers how to work together despite their social differences (Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13).
Christ’s Eminent Return In Rom 13:11-14 Paul gives the church at Rome one reason for walking in love, which is because Christ’s return in eminent and each one will soon have to give an account of their lives to God.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Respecting Cultural Differences Among Believers – The church at Rome was composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13 is about the eating of meats by some Church members and abstinence by others very likely includes a reference to the cultural differences between the Roman Gentiles and Jews. The Jewish converts were still being particular about observing the Sabbath and other Jewish holidays. But for such observances the Romans had no interest. The Jews also carried many traditions of meats and other foods, which the Romans did not observe. Thus, Paul was telling each culture to respect the cultural differences of the other seeing they are doing it as unto the Lord. The Jews observed their cultural traditions as a way of worshipping the Lord. The Romans avoided such traditions as a way of expressing their liberties in Christ Jesus.
Rom 14:1 Word Study on “receive” BDAG says the Greek word “receive” ( ) (G4355) means, “to receive or accept in one’s society or home or circle of acquaintances, into Christian fellowship.”
Scripture Reference – Note:
Rom 15:7, “ Wherefore receive ye one another , as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”
Rom 14:1 Word Study on “doubtful disputations” BDAG says the Greek word “doubtful disputations” ( ) (G1253) means, “a quarrel.” BDAG says that they are to “welcome [the weak], but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions.” ( 2)
Rom 14:3 “for God hath received him” Comments – If God has received a weak Christian brother into His fellowship and saving grace, even though he may be weak, how much ready should we be willing to welcome him into our fellowship (Rom 15:7).
Rom 15:7, “Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God.”
Rom 14:7 Comments – Note that not even the lost man is able to live and die without affecting others.
Rom 14:8 Comments – Rom 14:8 explains that our life and death serve for Christ Jesus’ advantage. Verse 6 says that “to the Lord” we either regard a day or disregard it.
Rom 14:9 “that he might be Lord birth of the dead and living” – Comments – Jesus is Lord of all things in heaven, earth and under earth (Php 2:9-11). Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father. Jesus is Lord of those spiritually dead, and these dead also will confess Him as Lord one day.
Php 2:9-11, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Rom 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Rom 14:11 Rom 14:11
1Ki 17:12, “And she said, As the LORD thy God liveth , I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die.”
Heb 6:13, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself ,”
Rom 14:11 “every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God” – Comments – Even the lost man is indebted to praise the lord. For God has created Him also.
Php 2:9-11, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Rom 14:15 “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably” – Comments – Col 3:14 says that love is the bond of maturity. In other words, everything we do must be governed by love. Love is what brings together everything that we do in a manner that pleases God. Goodspeed translates Rom 14:15 to read, “For if your brother’s feelings are hurt by what you eat, your life is not governed by love”
We are to govern our lives by love in everything that we do. Kenneth Hagin teaches us that our conscience is the voice of the Holy Spirit. [224] Col 3:15 tells us to govern our decisions by whether or not we have a peace in our hearts. When we allow ourselves to be led by the Holy Spirit, we find that a peace in our heart indicates that a decision is within God’s will and a check in our spirit indicates that something is not God’s will. Thus, we allow the peace of God to be our guide. If we do this, we will be allowing love to govern our decisions (Rom 3:14).
[224] Kenneth Hagin, The Human Spirit (Tulsa, Oklahoma: Faith Library Publications, c1985), 26.
Col 3:14-15, “And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.”
Rom 14:17 Comments – It is our position of righteousness that brings true peace in our hearts. This peace will allow the presence of the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts with a joy unspeakable and full of glory (1Pe 1:8).
1Pe 1:8, “Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:”
We see this same order of righteousness, peace, and joy in Rom 14:17.
Rom 14:18 Scripture References – We see a similar verse in Pro 3:3-4.
Pro 3:3-4, “Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart: So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man .”
Rom 14:19 “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace” Scripture References – Note:
Heb 12:14, “ Follow peace with all men , and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:”
Jas 3:18, “And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.”
Rom 14:20 Comments – Eating with offence refers to those who cause others stumble while not having a pure conscience in himself about partaking of a matter.
Rom 14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Rom 14:21
Luk 17:2, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”
Rom 14:22 “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God” – Comments – There are times that we must keep our faith quiet when we believe God for things. If we tell our family or friends, they may speak to us in doubt and unbelief. We do not want them to stumble at our faith, which appears to them foolish.
Illustration – Rahab is an example of someone who kept her faith in God quiet for a season.
Jos 2:20-21, “And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear. And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window.”
Rom 14:23 “for whatsoever is not of faith is sin” Comments – Heb 11:6 tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God.
Heb 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
Rom 15:2 Comments – Note that Paul opened a lengthy passage in Rom 13:9-10 on loving our neighbours and is still on this same topic in chapter 15.
Rom 13:9-10, “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”
Rom 15:2 Scripture References – Note similar verses about edifying our neighbour:
Rom 14:19, “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.”
1Co 9:19, “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.”
1Co 10:24, “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”
1Co 10:33, “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”
Rom 15:3 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – In Rom 15:3 Paul quotes from Psa 69:9.
Psa 69:9, “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me .”
Rom 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Rom 15:4
Psa 102:18, “ This shall be written for the generation to come : and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.”
1Co 10:11, “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition , upon whom the ends of the world are come.”
Heb 8:5, “ Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things , as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”
Rom 15:6 “That ye may with one mind” Comments – This word is used in the book of Acts. It refers to having the same purpose or impulse.
“and one mouth glorify God” Scripture References:
Jas 3:10
Rom 15:6 Comments – Rom 15:6 explains the purpose of being of same mind. God is not in the presence of sin. We cannot do it without one mind due to strife, etc.
Jas 3:16, “For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”
Rom 15:6 Illustration – As an illustration, see Act 2:46-47. God will be able to do great works among us in this state. How to do this? Rom 12:1-2; Rom 12:16.
Act 2:46-47, “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
Rom 12:1-2, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
Rom 12:16, “Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.”
Rom 15:7 “Wherefore receive ye one another” – Scripture Reference:
Rom 14:1
Rom 15:7 “as Christ also received us to the glory of God” Comments The pronoun “us” refers to the church at Rome, especially as Gentiles. So, in Rom 15:9 they are to glorify God for his unspeakable grace and gift of salvation.
Scripture Reference:
Rom 14:3
Rom 15:8 Comments Jesus Christ was born of Jewish lineage (Rom 15:8 a) in order to confirm the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah (Rom 15:8 b), and to bring the Gentiles into covenant with God (Rom 15:9 a).
Scripture References – Note supporting verses:
Mat 15:24, “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Act 3:25-26, “Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.”
Rom 15:9 “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” – Comments The second purpose of Jesus coming as Jew was to provide redemption to the Gentiles. The Gentiles would take note of how God grafted them into the vine and they would glorify God because of His mercy that saved them (Rom 9:22-24).
Rom 9:22-24, “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
“as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name” – Comments In Rom 15:9 b Paul now gives the first of four testimonies from the Old Testament prophets to confirm the fact that Jesus came to grant mercy and redemption to the Gentiles. He first cites a psalm of David in Psa 18:49, “Therefore will I give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and sing praises unto thy name.”
Rom 15:10 Comments In Rom 15:10 Paul gives the second of four testimonies from the Old Testament prophets to confirm the fact that Jesus came to grant mercy and redemption to the Gentiles. He cites Moses in Deu 32:43, “ Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people : for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.”
Rom 15:11 Comments In Rom 15:11 Paul gives the third of four testimonies from the Old Testament prophets to confirm the fact that Jesus came to grant mercy and redemption to the Gentiles. He cites an additional psalm authored by someone other than David in Psa 117:1, “O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people.”
Rom 15:12 Comments In Rom 15:12 Paul gives the fourth of four testimonies from the Old Testament prophets to confirm the fact that Jesus came to grant mercy and redemption to the Gentiles. He cites the prophet Isaiah in Isa 11:10, “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
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.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Rom 14:1-23
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 (Rom 14:2, Rom 14:21); and there is allusion also to observance of certain days (Rom 14:5). 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 8:1-13. 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 8:1-13., with similarity also of expressions, such as , , , , . 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 8:1-13.; 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 verse 21.
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; 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 (Mat 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, 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 8:1-13. were certainly due to them; and observe 1Co 8:5 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).
Rom 14:1
Him that is weak in the faith (rather, in faith, or in his faith). The article before does not denote the faith objectively. Cf. Rom 4:19, . In 1Co 8:12 it is the conscience that is spoken of as weak, . 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, but not to doubtful disputations; rather, untoi.e., so as to result injudgments of thoughts. The Authorized Version has in margin, “to judge his doubtful thoughts,“ which is probably nearer the true meaning than the text. means elsewhere dijudicartio (1Co 12:10; Heb 5:14), not “disputation” or “doubt” (as has been supposed from the verb , meaning “to doubt”). “Non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur”.
Rom 14:2, Rom 14:3
One believeth that he may eat all things (literally, believeth toor, hath faith toeat all things), but he that is weak eateth herbs. 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. “He that eateth” is the one that has faith to eat all things; and it is against contempt on his part of the weak in faith that the admonition is mainly directed throughout the chapter (cf. also Rom 15:1). But the weak require an admonition too. Their temptation was to judge those who indulged in freedom which to themselves appeared unlawful; and here, in Rom 14:5, the apostle gives such as did so a sharp reproof. There is a tone of indignation in his ; reminding us of his tone towards the Judaists in Galatia, who would have crippled Christian liberty. “God hath received him” refers evidently, as appears from its position and from the following verse, to him that eateth. God hath received him to himself in Christ, whosoever may sit in judgment on him. We observe that the verb is the same as in Rom 14:1 and in Rom 15:7.
Rom 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? (observe the emphatic position of ) to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand: for the Lord (better supported than God, as in the Textus Receptus) is able (or, has power) to make him stand. The standing or falling here spoken of may be taken to mean standing firm in, or falling from, a state of grace (cf. Rom 11:20, Rom 11:22), rather than acceptance or rejection at the last judgment. “For God is able,” etc., seems to require this meaning. The non-abstainer’s freedom does not endanger his position; for God is powerful to sustain him, and to God alone he is accountable.
Rom 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike in his own mind. To St. Paul himself the observance or non-observance of the days referred to was a matter in itself of no importance. He was content that each person should act up to his own conscientious convictions on the subject.
Rom 14:6
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord (omit, as ill-supported, as well as unnecessary, and he that regardeth not, etc.); he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Both parties are supposed to be equally desirous of serving God. The eater of whatsoever is set before him is so, as is shown by his thanking God for itobserve “for he giveth,” etc.and no creature of God can be polluting “if received with thanksgiving” (1Ti 4:5); the abstainer gives thanks too; and so his dinner of herbs is also hallowed to him. (Though it is not necessary to confine the thought to the practice of saying grace before meat, this is doubtless in view as expressing the asserted thankfulness. For proof of the custom, cf. Mat 15:36; Act 27:35; 1Co 10:30; 1Co 11:24; 1Ti 4:4, 1Ti 4:5.) The general principle on which, in eating and drinking, as in all beside, Christians are of necessity supposed to act, and which both parties are to be credited with desiring to carry out, is set forth in Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8, Rom 14:9, which follow.
Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8
For none of us liveth to himself, and none 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. The mention of dying as well as living unto the Lord, though it does not seem needed by the context, makes complete the view of the entire devotion of redeemed Christians to him; and introduces the thought, which follows, of their union with him in his own death as well as in his life.
Rom 14:9
For to this end Christ both died and lived (so certainly, rather than, as in the Textus Receptus, died, and rose, and revived. His living means here his entering on the heavenly life after the human death), that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. “Nam mortem pro salute nostra obeundo dominium sibi acquisivit quod nec morte solveretur; resurgendo autem totam vitam nostram in peculium accepit; morte igitur et resurrectione sua promeritus est ut tam in morte quam in vita gloriae nominis ejus serviamus” (Calvin). For the idea of this whole passage (Rom 14:7-9), cf. 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:23; 2Co 5:15.
The apostle now returns to his immediate subject, warning (as in 2Co 5:3) the one party against judging and the other against despising, on the ground of all alike having to abide hereafter the Divine judgment (cf. Mat 7:1, seq.; 1Co 4:3, 1Co 4:5). The distinction in 2Co 5:10 between the two parties, marked in the original by the initial and the following , is somewhat lost in our Authorized Version.
Rom 14:10-13
But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? or thou too, why settest thou at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God (so, rather than of Christ, as in the Textus Receptus). For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (Isa 45:23, quoted very freely from the LXX.). So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us therefore no longer judge one another. This concluding appeal is addressed to both parties. In all that follows St. Paul returns exclusively to the more enlightened ones, whose feelings were in accordance with his own; and he now presses a further thought upon them, namely of the harm they might be doing to the very souls of the weak ones by tempting them, either by word or example, to disobey their own consciences. But judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling (). For the meaning of the word, cf. Luk 17:1; Romans:33; Rom 16:17; 1Co 1:23; Rev 2:14.
Rom 14:14
I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. To him it becomes defiling, because partaking of it defiles his conscience (cf. 1Co 8:7).
Rom 14:15
For ( here certainly, rather than as in the Textus Receptus. It introduces a reason for the general admonition beginning at Rom 14:13) if on account of meat (not here, thy meat, as in the Authorized Version) thy brother is grieved, thou no longer walkest charitably (literally, according to love, or charity; i.e. in continuing to set at naught his conscientious scruples). With thy meat destroy not him, for whom Christ died (cf. 1Co 8:11, ). “Destroy” seems to denote causing his moral and religious ruin by shaking his conscientiousness, and perhaps upsetting altogether the faith he has, which, though weak, is real.
Rom 14:16
Let not then your good be evil spoken of. “Your good” is your enlightenment, which is in itself a good thing; but it will be “evil spoken of” as a bad thing, if it leads to superciliousness and uncharitableness.
Rom 14:17, Rom 14:18
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. The concluding clause here has reference to “let not your good,” etc., preceding. It is the practical fruits of faith that commend it to men, as well as being the test of its genuineness before God.
Rom 14:19-21
Let us therefore follow after the things that make for (literally, the things of) peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another (literally, the things of the edification of one another). For meat’s sake destroy not the work of God. “Destroy,” or rather, overthrowthe word is , not as in Rom 14:15is connected in thought with the edification, or building up () before spoken of. “The work of God” is that of his grace in the weak Christian’s soul, growing, it may be, to full assurance of faith (cf. 1Co 3:9,” ye are God’s building”). Upset not the rising structure, which is God’s own, as ye may do by putting a stumbling-block in the weak brother’s way. All things indeed are pure (i.e. in themselves all God’s gifts given for man’s service are so); but it is evil to that man who eateth with offence (i.e. if the eating be to himself a stumbling-block. The idea is the same as in Rom 14:14). It is good (, not of indispensable obligation, but a right and noble thing to do) neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. The concluding words in italics are of doubtful authority: they are not required for the sense. For St. Paul’s expression of his own readiness to deny himself lawful things, if he might so avoid offence to weak brethren, cf. 1Co 8:13.
Rom 14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Hast thou an enlightened faith, showing thee the unimportance of these observances? Do not parade it needlessly before men. (Chrysostom). Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Thy weak brother, if he abstains conscientiously, is thus happy; take care that thou art equally so in the exercise of thy freedom; for he that alloweth himself in anything that he is not fully convinced is lawful passes, ipso facto, judgment on himself.
Rom 14:23
But he that doubteth (or, wavereth) is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For sense of , cf. Rom 4:20; Mat 21:21; Mar 11:23; Jas 1:6. Faith here denotes an assured belief that what one does is right; nor is it necessary to give the word a wider or different sense in the concluding clause ( , Chrysostom). Hence to see in it (as has been done) the doctrine of the sinfulness of all works done apart from faith in Christ is to introduce an idea that is not there.
HOMILETICS
Rom 14:1-6
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 questionsas to whether certain food should be eaten, and certain days should be observedseem 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.
Rom 14:7
Life a trust.
Our life is not a possession to do as we like with. Yet many act as if it were; as if they were at liberty to be idle or to work, to employ their time and their powers in one way or in another, without giving account to any. Christians are summoned to take a different and a nobler view of this earthly existence.
I. WHAT IS ENTRUSTED BY THE CREATOR.
1. Life itself; the successive years and stages of which it is composed.
2. Its advantages; both the capacities and endowments which are natural, and the education and associations which Providence has secured to us.
3. Its opportunities; both of acquiring good and of doing good. It is to be remembered that, strictly speaking, it is not for these, but for the use we make of them, that we are responsible. We are to bear in mind that, though we live, we do not live unto ourselves.
II. HOW THE TRUST SHOULD BE DISCHARGED.
1. The motive and law of this discharge and fulfilment of trust we are to find in Christ. Our life will be lived aright, if its principle be grateful love to him who loved us; if his Spirit and example be our inspiration, if his glory and approval be our aim and hope.
2. The range within which this trust should be fulfilled is a wide one, including our fellow-men, for whom Christ died. In the household, in professional and business life, in the Church, in the nation, the Christian finds a sphere for consistent and unselfish service. The lessons of the parable of the talents may be appropriately studied in this connection.
III. THAT THE TRUST INVOLVES RETRIBUTION. Christ is a Judge as well as a Lord.
Our life must be tested by his scrutinizing, searching eye, his just and faithful judgment. Fidelity will be rewarded, unfaithfulness will be condemned, by him. For the faithful, the unselfish, the benevolent, the serviceable, there is secured the blessed prospect of sharing “the joy of their Lord.”
Rom 14:7-9
Life unto the Lord.
This is language which is doubtless deemed by some the language of extravagance and enthusiasm. But, in fact, it is sober enough. Nothing inferior to the law and principle here enounced can be accepted by the Lord Christ as the law and principle of his people’s life. And that the standard is one which may be attained is undeniable; St. Paul himself was a living exemplification of its practicability. What he taught that others should be, he was himself.
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. We “live unto the Lord.” This personal relation between the Saviour and those who are saved by him is a distinctive feature of the new and Christian life. When we consider this expression, what do we find it to involve?
1. We live as in the Lord’s sight, with his wise, observant, just, and yet friendly eye upon us.
2. We live under the motive and inspiration of the Lord’s love and sacrifice. He has lived and died for us; we live and die unto him.
3. We live in obedience to his will; as the scholar lives to his master, the soldier to his general, the statesman to his country or his king.
4. We live with the help of his Spirit.
5. We live to our Lord’s glory; losing sight of all that concerns ourselves, and become absorbed in and devoted to the extension of Christ’s kingdom, and the honour of Christ’s name. Even thus we do not exhaust the fulness of this noble utterance, “We live unto the Lord.”
II. THE RANGE OF THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.
1. Life, in all its varied experiences, in all its successive stages, is to the Christian life unto the Lord. No aspect, no period, no interest, is exempt; it is the joy of Christ’s servant to devote all energies, and to consecrate all influence, that life confers, unto him who redeemed life and made it a new and blessed thing.
2. Death is embraced within the wide range of this principle. An uninspired writer would not have ventured upon so sublime a representation as this. But Paul, who said, “To me to live is Christ,” was constrained to add, “To die is gain.” So here he says, “We die unto the Lord.” This was obviously and beautifully true of those who perished in the discharge of offices suggested by Christian benevolence, and of those who “resisted unto blood, striving against sin,” who died as martyrs, as witnesses to the truth. Yet none of any age or condition of life, who died in the discharge of duty however ordinary, were exempt from this privilege of dying unto Christ. It was doubtless often asked concerning a departed brother, “By what death did he glorify God?”
III. THE DIVINE POWER UNDERLYING THIS PRINCIPLE. A principle so contrary to selfish human nature can only be accounted for by a Divine interposition and provision. The apostle traces this:
1. In Christ’s death, and:
2. In his resurrection, in virtue of which he has become to man not only the universal Saviour, but the universal Lord.
Rom 14:12
Individual responsibility.
Men are prone to pass judgment one upon another. It is a tendency against which we have all occasion to watch. For our habit is to be lenient to ourselves and severe towards others. A corrective to this tendency is to be found in the great fact that all are accountable to God. Remembering this, we shall not, except where the authoritative society, the ordinance of Heaven, requires it, be willing to pass sentence upon our fellow-men.
I. THE FACT OF JUDGMENT. It is a fact to which conscience, and the constitution of human nature and human society, undeviatingly testify. Men sometimes strive to forget it, but seldom venture to deny it.
1. Judgment involves a Divine Judge. God will judge the world by Jesus Christ, a Judge qualified, both by his Divine knowledge and his human sympathy, for fulfilling this awful office.
2. Judgment involves an accountable moral nature on the part of those who are subjected to it. Man is so fashioned that it is just that he should be judged, He has knowledge of right and wrong, power of independent action arising from his voluntary nature, and the capacity to appreciate inducements to righteousness.
3. Judgment, always a fact, will in the future be explicit, pronounced, and manifested. Doubtless the Judge observes, approves, and censures every day; but there will be a period in which this shall be apparent. “The day will declare it!”
II. THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDGMENT. Wherever is a moral nature, amenable to law, there responsibility exists, and there the judicial exercise of Divine authority shall take place. Babes, idiots, madmen, are not subject to moral accountability; but all besideaccording to light and privilegemust appear for retribution before the bar of God. None is so high in this world as to be superior to justice; none is so low as to escape it. The omniscience of Deity cannot be deceived; the justice of Deity cannot be evaded.
III. THE INDIVIDUALITY OF JUDGMENT.
1. Each shall stand alone at the bar; every one shall give account of himself. In this sense, “every man shall bear his own burden.” For his own character, and for his own acts, shall each separate person be held responsible.
2. None shall escape responsibility by casting blame upon Providence, by pleading that he was not favourably circumstanced, that he was not one of “the elect.”
3. Nor can any evade judgment by throwing the blame of his sin upon society. The influence of others makes human life a discipline, but it does not reduce it to irresponsible mechanism.
4. Nor can any escape by casting censure upon the Church. Whether or not professing Christians have done their duty by one another, the fact of individual responsibility remains unaffected.
APPLICATION.
1. TO all hearers of the gospel this fact is a reason for accepting the good tidings of reconciliation.
2. To all Christians it supplies a motive to watchfulness and diligence.
Rom 14:17, Rom 14:18
The kingdom of God.
Christianity furnishes a moral perspective. It throws all things into their proper relations to one another, and elevates those things which are of supreme importance to the loftiest position of eminence. Instead of occupying themselves about outward actions, ceremonial observances, and ritual distinctions, Christians are in this passage recommended to aspire to those virtues which are of highest importance in the sight of God, and which bear the most powerfully upon the welfare of human society.
I. CHRISTIANITY CREATES A SPIRITUAL KINGDOM. It is not, like many human religions, a system of regulations as to conduct or observances. It is not “eating and drinking.” It is a kingdom conceived in the Divine mind, and worthy of its Divine Author; a kingdom established upon the mediation of a Divine Saviour; a kingdom consisting in the rule of spiritual powers and principles. It is a kingdom over spiritual natures, acting by spiritual agencies, and issuing in spiritual subjection and obedience. At the same time, it is a kingdom whose subjects are governed in their whole life by the power it introduces and applies to the inner nature. It is a kingdom in a measure realized in human society, and destined to be perfected in the glorious future.
III. THE SPECIAL CHARACTERS OF THIS KINGDOM.
1. In relation to Godrighteousness. His law of justice is obeyed. Introduced into right and harmonious relations with the supreme Ruler, the subject of the kingdom practises righteousness in human relationships. Righteousness is what man was made for, or is what the Christian attains to.
2. In relation to menpeace. Strife and hatred are the curse of human society. Christianity alone has discovered and applied the principle which remedies this evil. True peace is based on righteousness, on the prevalence of those principles which are in harmony with the nature of God and the constitution of human society.
3. In the heart of the subjectjoy. Cheerfulness, serenity, happiness,these are the portion of the sincere believer in Christ, the loyal subject of Christ. “Rejoice evermore!” is the Christian admonition; “alway rejoicing!” is the Christian motto. The power of the Holy Spirit accounts for this change from the forced gaiety of the worldling, and the cold gloom of the sceptic, to the gladness of him who is at peace with God, and who cherishes a good hope of eternal life.
III. THE RESULTS OF THIS KINGDOM. These are very fully stated in Rom 14:18.
1. Christ is served. If he is the Lord and Head of the kingdom, this must be so. His Name is honoured and his cause promoted where truly Christian virtues prevail.
2. God is pleased. For the purposes of his holy benevolence are fulfilled, and his Son is glorified and his creatures blessed.
3. The approval of men is secured. It cannot be otherwise when dispositions and practices prevail which are corrective of human ills and promotive of human rectitude, concord, and happiness.
Rom 14:18
The double aspect of Christian service.
The apostle’s mind was as powerful and active in a practical as in a speculative direction. Christ’s law had been, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And in this verse, Paul, reiterating his Master’s principles, vindicates the principles of the new faith by appealing to the excellence of the fruits of the Spirit.
I. WHAT CHRISTIAN SERVICE IS.
1. It involves a personal relation between Master and servant.
2. It involves an acknowledgment of Divine authority.
3. It involves a powerful motive to a consecrated life.
4. It involves the inclusion of all activities and relationships within its sphere.
II. SUCH SERVICE IS WELL PLEASING TO GOD.
1. For it resembles that of Christ himself, who came to do the will of him who sent him, and who “pleased the Father alway,” in whom the Father was “well pleased.”
2. It is in conformity to the Divine will. It is the prerogative of the spiritual nature of man that it is capable of apprehending and voluntarily accepting and obeying the perfect will of God.
3. It tends to the Divine glory. This is by no other means so effectively promoted as by the willing consecration to the Lord of all intelligent and moral natures.
III. SUCH SERVICE IS APPROVED OF MEN.
1. Even those who do not render it themselves, approve it in others.
2. Even those who verbally censure, in their inner conscience commend it.
3. Legislators and rulers approve it, as contributive to the harmony and just development of human society at large.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
Rom 14:1-9
The Christian’s dependence and the Christian’s independence.
The composite character of the Christian community at Romethe Jewish origin of many of its members on the one hand, and contact with heathenism on the otherhad 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 (Rom 14:3). 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” (Rom 14:7-9). 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” (Rom 14:3); “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or faileth” (Rom 14:4); “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom 14:5). 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.
Rom 14:7
The influence of our lives upon others.
“None of us liveth to himself.” The apostle, as we have seen, was here enforcing certain Christian duties, and he strengthened his exhortation by reminding his readers that they were not their own, but Christ’s. But the words are capable of a wider application.
I. THE INFLUENCE WHICH ONE MAN MAY EXERCISE FOR GOOD. Many who would like to do good are sometimes disposed to say, “What use can I be in the world? What influence can my life have upon others? What good can I do to others? I am too young. I am too humble. I have no intellectual gifts. I have no opportunities such as some people have of exercising influence upon others.” This is to underestimate the influence of the individual life. Whether we are conscious of it or not, the life of each of us, whether we are rich or poor, learned or unlearned, young or old, is exercising some influence upon others. It is not necessary that we should know another in order to exercise an influence upon him. Thousands of men are influenced by persons whom they never saw. The Reformation began at Cambridge University very early in the sixteenth century by Bilney, a solitary student, reading a Greek Testament with Latin translation and notes, which Erasmus had published. Bilney had never seen Erasmus, but the quiet work of Erasmus was the means of bringing Bilney to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. Bilney, again, influenced Latimer, who was one of the fathers of the English Reformation, and who suffered martyrdom for the truth. Thus the Reformation in England may be largely traced to the quiet work of Erasmus as he sat at his desk, and used his vast learning and intellect to make the Word of God more familiar to the people of his time. A young American student, more than seventy years ago, happened to read a printed sermon which had fallen into his hands. The sermon was entitled “The Star in the East,” by Dr. Claudius Buchanan, and described the progress of the gospel in India, and the evidence there afforded of its Divine power. That sermon, by a man whom he had never seen, fell into the young student’s soul like a spark into tinder, and in six months Adoniram Judson resolved to become a missionary to the heathen. That little printed sermon, preached in England, perhaps, with no apparent fruit, became, through God’s blessing, the beginning of the great work of American foreign missions. You may not be an Erasmus or a Claudius Buchanan. But God may have as great a work for you to do as he had for them. What an influence for good Christian parents may exercise upon their children, with far-reaching results to the world! The faithful sabbath-school teacher may leaven with gospel truth young minds that may yet control the destinies of a nation. Young women, by the power of their own Christian character, may change for the better the muddy current of many a godless life. The great matter is for every one of us to live near to God, to cultivate a Christ-like character, and then our life is sure to be a blessing. You must walk with God if you would have weight with men. Personal holiness is the key to personal influence for good.
II. THE INFLUENCE WHICH ONE MAN MAY EXERCISE FOR EVIL, The wise man says, “One sinner destroyeth much good.” Everyday experience will supply many illustrations of this truth. One bad man, one bad woman, will be a centre of corruption to the whole circle in which they move. One bad boy often corrupts a whole school. How terrible is the power of evil to propagate itself! How terrible is the guilt of those who have become the corrupters of others! The evil that we do has consequences far beyond the injury that we may do to ourselves.
Unto a loving mother oft
We all have sent, without a doubt,
Full many a hard and careless word,
That now we never can rub out;
For cruel words cut deeper far
Than diamond on the window-pane;
And, oft recalled in after-years,
They wound her o’er and o’er again.
“So, in our daily walk and life,
We write and do and say the thing
We never can undo nor stay
With any future sorrowing.
We carve ourselves on beating hearts!
Ah! then, how wise to pause and doubt,
To blend with love and thought our words,
Because we cannot rub them out!”
The great poet of Scotland, Robert Burns, on his dying bed wished that he could have recalled some of the foolish things that he had written. But it was too late. Better far to leave the wrong undone than afterwards to regret the doing of it. “None of us liveth to himself,” should be constantly before our minds as a restraining memory to keep us from evil, and an inspiring memory that will cheer us on to make the world better than we have found it.C.H.I.
Rom 14:10-23 (with Rom 15:1-3)
Three laws of Christian life.
In these closing verses of the fourteenth chapter and the opening verses of the fifteenth, three principles are laid down, one or other or all of which would cover almost every case of difference between fellow-Christians. These are
I. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY. Where we differ from our fellow-Christians in details of doctrine, worship, or practice, we are very prone to be uncharitable in our judgments. We are inclined to doubt their Christianity because they do not just see as we do on such matters. One great fact the apostle would have us remember when we are tempted to condemn our brethren. It is the fact of the judgement to come. “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ” (Rom 14:10). “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more” (Rom 14:12, Rom 14:13). It is not we who are to be the judges of our fellow-Christians, but God. We should not like that they would be our judges: then why should we judge them? The thought that we ourselves must stand before a higher judgment-seat, where all our sins and secret thoughts and unchristian motives shall be known, should make us more cautious in our condemnation of others. And, as regards our fellow-Christians, is it not enough for us that God will judge them? Surely we may leave their trial with confidence in his hands.
II. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN SELF–DENIAL. There is a gradual progress in the principles here laid down. First of all, it is shown that we ought not to judge our brethren. This is a purely negative command. The next command is somewhat more positive. “But judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Rom 14:13). The apostle enforces the exhortation to Christian self-denial by three special reasons.
1. The Christian should not injure those whom Christ has died to save. “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:15). This is the true basis of total abstinence. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom 14:21).
2. The Christian has higher enjoyments than those of selfish indulgence. “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom 14:17). The giving up of a merely bodily comfort or enjoyment should not be a great hardship to the Christian. God is able to give us much more than this.
3. The example of Christ is an example of self-denial. “For even Christ pleased not himself” (Rom 15:3). Self-denial is an essential part of truly following Christ. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” This law of Christian self-denial covers a wide field. Not merely abstinence from meats and drinks, from bodily indulgences which do harm to others; but also to put a bridle on our tongues, lest by our words we should give offence to others; to abstain from gratifying even lawful desires and wishes where the attainment of our purpose would cause pain or injury to others;this is self-denial, this is to follow the example of Christ. Self-pleasing is a besetting sin with most of us.
III. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN HELPFULNESS. Here the apostle takes another forward step. Here he states a still higher principle. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another” (Rom 14:19); “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification” (Rom 15:2). Here is the truly positive principle of Christian life. The Christian life should not be merely an abstinence from evil, but a positive doing of what is good. We should not merely refrain from injuring our neighbours, but we should be actively engaged, as Christians, in rendering them all the spiritual help we can. As a rule, our Christianity is negative rather than positive. It is too selfish. Many Christians are perfectly content with attaining the salvation of their own souls, and going through the world as harmlessly as possible. This, after all, is but a low type of Christianity True Christianity, the Christianity of the sermon on the mount, is as the salt, the light, the leaven; an active, helpful, beneficent influence upon those around us.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY T.F. LOCKYER
Rom 14:1-23
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 S.R. ALDRIDGE
Rom 14:5
Individual decision.
Questions concerning conduct greatly interest and occupy the minds of the majority. They involve the translation of abstract principle into concrete rules, and the visible concrete stirs us more deeply than abstractions. Yet it is these matters of application and detail which have often rent and grievously damaged the fellowship of the saints. The wise, magnanimous prudence of the apostle lays down one duty in relation to these vexed questions, which crop up today in modem forms. For instance, many are perplexed as to the rigid obligatoriness of sabbath observance, as to what is implied in keeping a day of rest as “the Lord’s day.” Others moot the topic of contributions for religious purposes, whether a tithe is the scriptural proportion, and how far this is compulsory. Other subjects coming under the same category are amusements, abstinence from spirituous liquors, business policy, and politics.
I. EACH HAS TO SETTLE SUCH QUESTIONS FOR HIMSELF. “Let each be assured in his own mind.” Others cannot do our part in investigation and decision. No one is authorized to come between us and God in such matters; even the apostle does not intrude on the province of several judgement. We must decide what our conscience prescribes, and where our conception of Christian service requires us to draw the line. Only let each see to it that he be not satisfied with giving the least amount or rendering the slightest obedience possible. He is wrong and condemns himself who asks, “How near the dangerous cliff can I walk without peril?” or, “What is the minimum religious work I can undertake as a servant of Christ?’ We need to study Scripture, to prayerfully ponder on its law of life, its principles, and the illustrations afforded by the lives and acts of the noblest heroes. Nor are we precluded from seeking the help and enlightenment which other books and companions may furnish. Yet the conclusion come to must be felt to be our own, in harmony with the dictates of our conscience, and ratified by our independent judgment. Then we may go fearlessly forward. Men differ in the conclusions they reach honestly enough, according to their breadth of intellect, their natural temperament, their surroundings, and their education, mental and experimental.
II. WE CANNOT BE ENDLESSLY ARGUING THESE QUESTIONS. He who is ever debating with himself settles nothing. He wastes his brief moments in deciding what to think and do, instead of beginning at once the discharge of his duties and the exercise of his gifts. Much in Christian doctrine and practice is unambiguous. To cultivate love, peace, godliness, to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in activity, benevolence, holiness,the rightness of this needs no process of reasoning. The man possessed by an idea is the man who influences his fellows; not he who is sure of nothing, who has only conundrums to propound instead of a way of salvation to proclaim and suggestions for usefulness to enforce. The ring of conviction in the voice begets assent and confidence in the hearers. “We believe, and therefore we speak,” this is the preaching which is mighty unto conversion. A dainty scepticism has but negative chilling power. Doubters can hardly be fruit-bearers. Once a decision has been arrived at, the reasons on which it was founded may not be always present to the mind, but the impression remains. This does not forbid a growth of opinion, the gaining of a wider outlook and clearer penetration modifying previous conclusions. Time and experience confirm or alter views by imperceptible degrees, without the ferment that attends constant restlessness of debate.
III. WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE OUR PARTICULAR JUDGMENT AND EXAMPLE AS ARTICLES OF FAITH ON OUR FELLOW–MEMBERS. There must be mutual concessions. Let not the strong contemn the weak as narrow-minded, nor the scrupulous censure the liberty of others as an infraction of Christian morals. Teetotallers err when they pass strictures on non-abstainers, and the latter are equally guilty when they ridicule the former’s self-denial. The good of the society, though best secured by the welfare of each unit composing the alliance, is yet of greater worth than the satisfaction and triumph of any separate section. “Follow after the things which make for peace.” Divine charity, which bears long with all sorts and conditions of men, is reflected in the membership which knows how to be tolerant without laxity, and comprehensive without indefiniteness. The building up of the temple of God will take long if we are always deliberating on the right of individual stones to a place in the structure. Is the mark of the Master-mason on the stone? Has God received such? Then it is not for us to question or exclude.S.R.A.
Rom 14:9
The dominion of Christ.
It is characteristic of apostolic ethics to turn from details of conduct to the main principles which should permeate every Christian life. The central truth governing all religious behaviour is our relationship to God, as manifested and actualized in Christ Jesus. Thus the historical facts of Christ’s death and resurrection necessarily give rise to doctrine, and they cannot be separated from our belief without tending to overthrow the whole edifice of Christian living based on Christ as its Foundation. It matters comparatively little whether a man eats meat or abstains from it, observes certain days or disregards their special sanctity, provided that the scruple alleged or the freedom enjoyed is conscientious, springing out of his conception of the nature of the religion Jesus Christ has revealed. It is not for others to despise the punctilious or to blame the informal. Each will be judged by his Master. That Master is Lord of both quick and dead; he presides not only over our earthly life, but over our departure to the larger life. Christians may differ in point of intellectual attainment and particular opinion, but every face believingly turned to the Sun of Righteousness reflects some of its glory; every worshipper is brought near to every other as he gathers at the feet of the Infinite Object of adoration and praise.
I. THE LORDSHIP OF CHRIST.
1. Christian freedom is not unconditional liberty. “Ye are not your own” is the watchword of grateful service. The emancipation of a slave does not set him free from all law; he is released from degrading servitude to be useful to his country and king. Modern civilization teaches the compatibility of numerous statutes with true essential freedom. The rule of Christ is recognized and illustrated in the Acts of the Apostles, “Thou, Lord, show which of these two thou hast chosen;” “The Lord added to them daily.” “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” is the first question of the new life. There would be no difficulty in any department of Church-fellowship if the authority of Christ were fully recognized. “One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.” Finances, activity, brotherly regard, all flourish where hearts are surrendered in entirety to the sway of Christ.
2. This Lordship means protection as well as government. As under Roman law’ each noble patrician had his clients, whose wrongs he redressed and whose interests he promoted, so the Saviour throws the aegis of his love over his subjects, directing them by his wisdom, shielding them by his interposition. “Fear not; no man shall set on thee to harm thee.” The very end of government is the welfare of the governed. Old ideas that the monarch has no duties and the people no rights have passed for ever; and we are warranted in seizing nobler conceptions of the sovereignty of God than prevailed when despotism reigned unquestioned. Let men beware lest they lop off limbs from the body of Christ, and by their divisions and excommunications rend his seamless garment.
3. The dominion of Christ may well console us as we think of the dead. He is the Lord of all worlds, has “all authority in heaven and earth.” His voice comforts the bereaved, sounding amid the stillness of the sepulchre, “Fear not: I have the keys of death and of Hades.” “He is not the Lord of the dead, but of the living.’ The dead pass not into a dreary unillumined state; they “depart to be with Christ.” And where mournful reflections on wasted lives, sudden departures, check hopeful sorrow, and memory emits little fragrance from the past; yet we may leave all in his hands who, as the supreme Architect of humanity, rejoices in restoration rather than destruction. “Shall not the Judge do right?”
II. THE MANNER IS WHICH THIS LORDSHIP WAS WON.
1. By stooping to the condition of his subjects. He is Lord by creation, but still more by virtue of his redemptive work. Well has he earned his title who entered into our humbling nature, tasted our sorrows, and drank the cup of bitterness as our Sin Offering. He himself passed through the gloomy portals of death, and in rising again revealed both the love and the might of God. Only he can be a true Master who first subordinated himself to service. For the suffering of death is he crowned with glory and honour. He can declare, “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore.” “Because I live, ye shall live also.”
2. After this model, service to the Church becomes the stepping-stone to honor. Christ has furnished the pattern to his followers according to which office and rank are conferred. He who is most profitable to the body is to be most esteemed by the members. Empty sinecures are unknown in his kingdom. And if we would benefit our fellows, we must by real sympathy share their need and trouble. “He that will be greatest, let him be your minister.” Christ rose as the Firstfruits, and in Christ shall all be made alive, but every man in his own rank.S.R.A.
Rom 14:17
Essentials of the kingdom of God.
Differences of opinion respecting festivals to be observed and foods to be abstained from were certain to arise in communities composed of Jews of every sect and Gentiles of every race. And we may be thankful that these differences manifested themselves so early in the primitive Church, since they furnished an occasion for a deliverance by the apostle on such a theme. We are glad to have such a valuable weighty aphorism as that of the text. The apostle’s firmness and meekness equally display themselves. He wants none to suffer bondage, nor yet does he permit their liberty in Christ to be harmful to their brethren, and thus a topic of reproach in the world outside. And he makes the position clear by distinguishing between what is fundamental in religion, and what is temporary, local, and adventitious.
I. THE NON–ESSENTIALS OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. The “kingdom of God” is a comprehensive phrase, denoting the new sovereignty established by Christ in the hearts of individuals where he rules in power and grace, and likewise embracing the whole company of those throughout the globe who, by personal reception of the truth, have entered into a society with duties and privileges emanating from the Kingship of the Redeemer. The code of life lays down no hard specific rules of abstinence or conformity. “Eating and drinking” are no necessary part of Christian living. It is the spirit in which certain actions are performed or certain privtions submitted to rather than the things themselves which make men Christians. External observances do not constitute religion. They are a visible embodiment of it, but not its vital principle. Let us not set too high an estimate on rites and ceremonies and forms of worship, or we may glorify the husk to the neglect of the kernel, and the shapely bark may conceal a rotten tree. Ordinances of touching, tasting, handling, concern things that perish in the using. Discussions respecting amusements, pleasures, occupations, as to which may lawfully be enjoyed and which not, seldom advance any man’s obedience to Christ; they are the fringe, not the vesture, of religion, and talk concerning them is apt to degenerate into trifling and casuistry. Let each decide for himself with prayerful meditation what his course shall be, and try to secure the best, most lasting possessions. He who is always deliberating about the necessary outworks will never reach the heart of the palace of truth.
II. WHEREIN THE KINGDOM OF GOD CONSISTS. Having dismissed the negative aspect of Christianity, the apostle proceeds to set forth the main qualities of the Christian life. These are “righteousness,” just, honourable dealing, keeping the commandments of God with a pure conscience, mindful of the claims of God and our neighbours. Also “peace,” the tranquillity of the child resting on the Father’s bosom, unruffled by storms without, not over-anxious about daily cares, nor depressed by bereavements or affliction. And “joy,” which is peace brimming over into exultation, triumphant like snow brightened by the sunlight, even made rosy by the setting rays. These are spiritual qualities. They are spiritual in source and nature, are “fruits of the indwelling Spirit,” are enjoyed and perfected “in the Holy Ghost.” Righteousness is not the laborious toil of the legalist; nor is peace the apathy of the stoic or the sleepy contentment of the epicurean; nor is joy the momentary excitement of the sensualist. They are pure inward feelings, springs that flow spontaneously into outward behaviour. They are very practical, dealing not with abstruse or knotty points of conduct, but with qualifications easily understood, and unambiguous as to the method of attainment. It is not holding a certain creed, but cultivating a certain disposition and character. They tend to the harmony and usefulness of the Church. Dissension is impossible where these graces prevail. Unprofitable arguing is abandoned for mutual comfort and service. Engaged upon the higher business of the kingdom, petty details sink into their rightful insignificance, minor matters settle themselves. Would that the Church had attended to this dictum of the apostle, and been ever distinguished by these amiable virtues, instead of one section quarrelling with and persecuting another, making Church history a weariness to read, and confirming rather than quieting the doubts of the sceptical! Volumes of theology are not so powerful to convince of the truth of Christianity as a holy life. Men quickly discriminate between ritualism and religion, and detect the asceticism which mortifies the body, yet nourishes the pride of the soul.S.R.A.
Rom 14:21
A self-denying ordinance.
A society is formed for mutual help. The prosperity of the whole is a prime factor in all our working and living. Wondrous the effect of the gospel in levelling distinctions of class, in banishing national enmities, and in making Jew and Gentile realize their adoption into the same family of God, their oneness of blood, their community of interests.
I. THE STRONGER CAN HELP THE WEAKER, AND THE HIGHER STOOP TO THE POSITION OF THE LOWER, MORE EASILY THAN VICE VERSA. It is the glory of the greater to include the less. And the man of far-reaching spiritual views can accommodate himself to his less intellectual brother more readily than the latter can lay aside his prejudices and rejoice in the removal of all restrictions. Hence those in our assemblies capable of assimilating the richest food placed before them are called upon to remember the plainer fare that suits the spiritual digestion of their brethren. Those who delight in climbing to the peaks of spiritual knowledge can learn to moderate their ardour, and sit with their fellows in happy concord in the plain, because otherwise there can be no general assembly, many being devoid of the strength and agility needful for an ascent to the summit. Our exhortation and worship must ever, though not exclusively, take account of the weaker and less educated, the children and the simple.
II. IT IS SAFER TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF SELF–REPRESSION RATHER THAN OF LIBERTY. Every man endowed by the Spirit with a clearness and amplitude of vision that discriminates between the essential and the non-essential may refuse to have his freedom compulsorily narrowed by others. But he does well, and acts in the spirit of Christ who “pleased not himself,” if he spontaneously renounces part of his privileges, in order that he may remove a possible stumbling-block from his brother’s path. And there is a danger of man’s natural tendency to self-assertion leading him to a violation of conscience. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth” implies the possibility of insisting on freedom with low motives. An instructive tradition of Christ is recorded by Codex Bezae after Rom 14:4 in Luk 6:1-49.: “On the same day he beheld a man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest: but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.” To disregard days and unclean food without a perception of the reason found in Christ’s universal cleansing and sanctification is not to justify, but to aggravate, the offence. To act against a conscientious feeling is always wrong. Many a man who boasts of his ability to pass unscathed through a fiery ordeal is being singed and maimed by his recklessness.
III. TO HARM A BROTHER IS TO WOUND CHRIST. “Destroy not thy brother, for whom Christ died.” See in the weakest member of the community the face and form of thy Lord! The essence of Christianity is self-abnegation; love makes the sacrifice welcome. Christ in us is our better self. and self-love wards off self-injury. The leader of a band anxious for its prosperity end progress feels a pang when any element of discord or weakness is introduced. Jesus Christ is the sensitive Head of the Church, and the inefficiency of any member is a grief to him; the suffering of any limb impairs his joy. Could we more often place ourselves in thought in his position, we should quickly abate aught that lessens the unity and power of the body of Christ. Every pastor of a flock, every teacher of a class, has to think of the effect of his example, lest what he might enjoy without risk himself should exert a dangerous influence on others. It is more blessed to yield than to receive a concession.S.R.A.
HOMILIES BY R.M. EDGAR
Rom 14:1-12
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. (Rom 14:1-6.) 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. (Rom 14:7-9.) 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 aspectsit 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. (Rom 14:8.) 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.
“‘Teach 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.'”
V. INSTEAD OF JUDGING OTHERS, WE OUGHT TO THINK OF BEING JUDGED AT THE JUDGMENT–BAR OF JESUS OURSELVES. (Rom 14:10-12.) 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.
Rom 14:13-23
Deference to weak consciences, not condemnation of them.
Having taken his readers up to the judgment-bar of Jesus, the only Lord of the conscience, he now proceeds to show how we are to help weak brethren. It will not be by condemning their scruples, but by following Christ in seeking their salvation. We are to defer to conscience so far as our weaker brother’s spiritual interests are concerned, and surrender meat or wine, if by our total abstinence we can promote his salvation.
I. WE ARE BOUND TO CONSIDER WHETHER OUR MANNER OF LIVING MAY NOT BE A STUMBLING–BLOCK TO OUR WEAK BROTHER. Having taken his readers to Christ’s judgment-bar, he now asks them to examine themselves as to the influence of their mode of living. Is their freedom an offence to the weak? Then in the spirit of the Master, who gave his life to save the weak brother, they ought to surrender their freedom in deference to their scruples. Surely, if Jesus surrendered life for the weak brother, dying to redeem him, we ought to be ready to surrender meat or to surrender wine, if by so doing we can promote our weaker brother’s welfare. Paul’s position was a noble one. He knew that nothing was unclean of itself. He was none of your squeamish and scrupulous individuals. He could eat whatever was set before him; he could drink without the least excess. But he was ready to surrender both meat and wine for the weak brother’s sake. And this is the very spirit of Christ. It is here that we base our temperance reformation; not on partaking being a sin, but being inexpedient in view of the weak brother’s dangers.
II. DOUBT AS TO OUR DUTY SHOULD LEAD US TO ABSTAIN RATHER THAN INDULGE UNTIL WE ARE FULLY PERSUADED IN OUR OWN MINDS. The apostle wants every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind as to his course of action. One who is not, one who has no real faith in the course of action he is pursuing, is self condemned. Paul wishes to bring all such to the side of abstinence. Better abstain from meat or drink until such times as the path of duty is clear. Now, there are multitudes that act quite differently. They go on indulging themselves because they have not made up their minds. Now, this is moral indifference, and deserves reprobation.
III. THE DEATH OF CHRIST IS THE GREAT MORAL LEVER WITH CONSCIENTIOUS SOULS. The apostle bases his whole plea for the endangered brother on the death of Christ for him. If Christ died for him, we should surely abstain for him. The death of Jesus is thus seen to be the great moral leverage for the world. Into the midst of things indifferentfor “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”the self-sacrifice of our Master enters and compels conscientious souls to make some sacrifices for the sake of the brethren. Their edification becomes our aim, since the things are indifferent. We are not selfishly to assert our liberty, but self-denyingly we are to forego it, and bind ourselves to abstinence for whatever may be a brother’s snare. If we could get such a deference to conscience practised in the Christian Church, society would very soon be regenerated.R.M.E.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Rom 14:1, &c. Him that is weak, &c. By Aquila and Priscilla, who were come from Rome, and with whom St. Paul was familiar for a considerable time (Act 18:2-3.), or by some other hand, the Apostle had a particular account of the state of the Christian church at Rome, and was informed that there was no good agreement between the Jewish and Gentile convertsabout meats and days. The Jewish Christian retaining a veneration for the laws of Moses, abstained from certain meats, and was observant of certain days; while the Gentile, understanding that the Christian religion laid him under no obligations to such ceremonial points, had no regard to either. The Jew censured the Gentile as a latitudinarian, little better than a mere heathen, and likely to relapse into idolatry. The Gentile censured the Jew, as a man of narrow, superstitious principles, and defective in the faith of the Gospel. The Apostle exhorts, that in such things as are 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 allowances, and especially not carry any Gospel liberties so far, as to disgust a weak brother or 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. By him that is weak in the flesh, is meant the Jew, who the Apostle knew assuredly was in the wrong; yet he uses him very tenderly, and avoids saying any thing of him that was harsh and overbearing, and only represents him as weak in the faith. The reception here spoken of is, “the receiving into familiar and ordinaryconversation,” as is evident from ch. Rom 15:7 where the Apostle, directing them to receive one another mutually, uses the same word . “Live together in free and friendly manner, the weak with the strong, andthe strong with the weak, without any regard to the differences among you about the lawfulness of any indifferentthing.”Doubtfuldisputationsimply”debatesanddistinctionsaboutmatters in doubt between you.” Dr. Whitby explains the word of discriminating persons, according to their inward thoughts and reasonings on these heads. Dr. Doddridge, remarking upon this verse the strength of the Apostle’s reasoning in favour of candour and mutual condescension, observes with the true spirit of that candour which he has so strongly enforced, “that when it shall please God to awaken in the governors of established protestant churches such a spirit of moderationandgoodness, joined with a true zeal for religion, as to leave certain things in that natural state of indifference, in which almost all sensible men confess it is best they should be left, many separations will cease of course, and the healers of such breaches will do a noble service to their country, be honoured by all who love Christianity, and amply rewarded by the great Head of the church.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 14:1 . ] 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.
] That here also denotes faith in Christ , is self-evident; the infirmity , however, is not conceived of according to the general (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 carries with it defectiveness of moral , but this does not justify the explaining of as equivalent to (Grotius and others), or as equivalent to doctrine believed (Beza, Calvin).
] take to you , namely, to the intercourse of Christian brotherly fellowship. The opposite would be an (comp. Gal 4:17 ), whereby they, instead of being attracted, might be forced to separation . So in substance, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Reiche, Kllner, Fritzsche, Rckert, de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Hofmann, etc. But others take it as: interest yourselves in him , “of furthering, helpful support” (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom), which, however, does not mean. Act 28:2 is appealed to, where, however, . is to take to oneself , a meaning which is here also required by , Rom 14:3 , as well as by Rom 15:7 , comp. also Rom 11:15 .
.] not to judgings of thoughts . . is a result , which in the case of the enjoined . must not be come to, so that thus . . contains a negative more precise definition of , in the sense, namely: not in such a manner that the , 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 would be abused. Thus , 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 likewise (Mat 15:19 ; Mar 7:21 ; Luk 9:46 , et al.; Rom 1:21 ; 1Co 3:20 ). Nothing is to be supplied, but is simply to be taken in the sense of the result (as just previously ., Rom 13:14 ), not even as usque ad (Reiche). Substantially in agreement with this view of . . are Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, including Kllner, 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 as doubts , which are not to be excited in the thoughts of the weak. So Luther, Bengel, Cramer, Ernesti, Morus, Bhme, Ammon, Flatt, Klee, Olshausen, Philippi, Umbreit. But 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, Glckler, and others, . 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 .); and the notion disceptatio [ , ] is nowhere denoted in the N. T. by . Rckert 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.” may certainly bear this meaning (Job 37:16 ; Plato, Phil. p. 32 A); but in that case the article must have stood before ., and the climactic sense ( more abruptly ) would be gratuitously imported.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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 mans 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 Lords. 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] brothers 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 () and the weak (, Rom 15:1; , 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 partywe might even say the Paulinewas 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). Origens 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 Tholucks 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 Philippis 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 Baurs 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 wineas 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 unanimitythe 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 [ ]. The 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: . 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 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 others), 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 :
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 confidencethere, 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 by saving faith, have generally placed the certitudo conscienti 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 , Christian doctrinea 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 imperfectlyi.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 [ . Dr. Lange: Doch nicht zur Aburtheilung von Bewisgrnden. See below.R.] means, in 1Co 12:10 and Heb 5:14, to pronounce judgment, sentence. 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 to the weak, but the 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 Luthers 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 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 may also mean doubt (Theophylact), does not come further into consideration. Erasmus, Beza, Er. Schmid, have accepted the classical meaning of doubt for , and conflict for . [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. [ , …] The explanation: He is convinced that he can eat every thing ( ; 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 ( ; Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi).
But he who is weak [ . The E. V. assumes a strict antithesis here, but the (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 , because he will first take the weak into special consideration.Eateth herbs. . 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 .
Rom 14:3. Let not him who eateth despise, &c. The 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 is the specifically improper conduct of the legal believer, and it is not correct to suppose that (according to Tholuck) the belongs as a species under this . 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 [ ]. 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. [ , … Comp. Rom 9:20.] Tholuck is here quite beyond the connection (in consequence of the supposition that is only a species of ), when he questions whether the weak one here judging is addressed. The 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 mans servant [ . Paul uses 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 . 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 , who has in him much that is in itself surprising. The weak one fails to find in him the manner of the .
To his own master [ ]. The 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 masterthat is, the exclusive master.
Standeth or falleth [ ]. The standing and falling, as an expression of Gods 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 Gods 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, Gods 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 Gods judgment, but in the uninvited judgment of men (Ebionitism, hierarchism, &c.).
He shall be made to stand []. 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 [ . See Textual Notes3 and4.R.] Christ supports the believer. If the reading were regarded as an exegetical correction, we would have to consider, in the reading , 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 [ ]. He distinguishes one day from another, and selects it as a holy-day. = 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, 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 [ ]. 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 : 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 feelingas it is connected with faith in authority, party influence, &c.into his inmost, spiritually effected conviction. We could therefore here translate : 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 constitutes an antithesis to the immediateness of the (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 [ ]. 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 [ . The dative is dat. commodi.] The is Christ (Meyer, Philippi, and others); referred by many to God, against which is Rom 14:9; Meyer: unto the Lords 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 [ ]. 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 [ ]. 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 is, indeed, always connected with a and ; although the objective dependence on Christ (Rckert, 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 [ . See Textual Note7.] Even the Christians dying is an act of consecration to the glory of Christ (Bengel: eadem ars moriendi, qu vivendi.)
Whether we live, therefore, or die, &c. [ , …] 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 Lords (belonging to Him). [Alford: We are, under all circumstances, living or dying (and fortiori eating or abstaining, observing days or not observing them), Christs: His property.Meyer: In the thrice-repeated and emphatic ( ) 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 [ . 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 here, as in Rev 2:8, designates Christs return to eternal life, hence the is passed over. Olshausen would understand the 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 of the Lord is established on His death and resurrection. But it is in harmony with the telic definition of Christs dominion that the antithesis in this lifethe living and the deadrecedes 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 Meyers suggestion, the purpose is not to refer the effects of Christs 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 is here opposed to the dominion of Christ over the dead and the living, as above, to another mans 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 [ ]. 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 ones brother, therefore, first, encroaches upon Christs 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 , 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 mankinds 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.38That even the prophetic passage; itself comprises, with Christs 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 , Philippi on , others on . 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 [ ]. 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 [ ]. The . 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 brothers way [ ]. It does not follow that, because the expressions and 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: . 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 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 [ ]. 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 Pauls own , 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 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 Christs 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; , 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, , not according to Lachmanns reading, . [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 , refers it to Christ.R.] The Apostle himself belongs to the strong (comp. 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, . This introduces an exception to unclean, not to unclean of itself. Hence not = but = nisi (Meyer).R.]To him it is unclean. With emphasis. [The uncleanness is accordingly subjective (Meyer).R.]
Rom 14:15. For if [ See Textual Note13.] The less authenticated reading seems at the first glance to be most suitable; but the reading 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 [ . , 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 , 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 ones being made to stumble by the strong ones eating of meat. Tholuck: , according to the New Testament use of language: to afflict; therefore is taken by expositors (Origen) = . 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 mans being afflicted itself the beginning of judging? Philippi, in harmony with Elsner, ignores the subjective justification of this affliction, by interpreting the 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 [ ]. For the one giving offence injures love, and also makes himself unclean.
Destroy not by thy meat, &c. [ , …] 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 , or actually relapses into a state leading to this. The exasperations of the one falling back upon ordinances lead to fanaticism and the , 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 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 [ . See Textual Note14. De Wette thus explains the connection of 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. 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 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, . 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 Mnster 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. [. 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, Meyers view be adopted, then a motive is presented here, with a reference to the tenor of the evil-speakingi. 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 , typified by the Old Testament theocracy, is Gods dominion over the heart, instituted and administered by Christ; it is the heavenly sphere of life, in which Gods 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 [ . 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 [ ]. 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 moralitythat 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 Gods 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. , 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 Gods kingdom, and the cultivation of the former, is meant. So far is much stronger than . [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 , 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. [ , …] 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 [ . 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 is here in contrast with the impulse of party excitements.
The things which pertain to mutual edification [ ]. Edification always comprises two elements, according to the figure which represents the Church as Christs 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 [ (pull down) ]. Instead of building up, the inconsiderate one tears down. The and are a specific expression of this fact. The work (building) of God has been understood as Christian faith, the , the extension of Christianity; Meyer, and others, have understood the Christian as such. [His Christian personality.] But the here evidently denotes the fellowship of faith. [This seems to combine the two favorite views, viz., that the fellow-Christian is here referred tothat the kingdom of God in its extension is meant. Alford, referring to 1Co 3:9, explains: Thy fellow-Christian, as a plant of Gods planting, a building of Gods raising.R.]
But it is evil [ . Instead of we have here. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 403.R.] To 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 evili. e., there is criminality in the man. On the other proposed supplements, see Meyer, Alford, in loco.R.] , 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 [ ]. 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 meatthat is, by thy inconsiderate and free enjoymentthe work of God, for, by the 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 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 ones 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. [ , …] Luther, and others, incorrectly take as comparative in relation to [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 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. [ . See Textual Note17.] Tholuck, and others, referring to 1Co 10:31, would supply with , which is certainly more correct than to supply . [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 , &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? [ ; 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 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 [ . 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 . by thanksgiving.
Blessed is he, &c. [, …] 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 mans blessedness in opposition to the weak; and all the less so, because, immediately afterward, there is mention made of the weak ones 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 mans 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 , and not (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, . Agendum eligit (Estius).R.]
Rom 14:23. But he that doubteth [ ]. With the act of eating, he is at the same time stricken and condemned, ; 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 [ ]. 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. Langes view of (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 [ ]. 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, 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 Chrysostoms 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 Gods 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 prveniens, 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 Augustines 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): . 1. A. B. C. D1. (most modern editors): . 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. Eter, non-eater, would be more exact.
[3]Rom 14:4.[Rec., C3. D. F. L., Chrysostom, Theodoret, read . . A. B. C1., early versions: . The latter is adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles, Lange; the former by Philippi, Meyer, De Wette, Wordsworth. The might have been borrowed from Rom 14:2, as a correction; or the may have been a gloss derived from . The probabilities are so equally balanced, that the MS. authority must decide in favor of .
[4]Rom 14:4.[Rec., (L): ; a few authorities: ; . A. B. C. D. F.: . The last is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. Fritzsche, Philippi: .
[5]Rom 14:6[The clause: , , is omitted in . 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 () 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 Lords 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 before ; but it is found in all the MSS., versions and fathers.
[7]Rom 14:8.[The transcribers have made confusion with the verb in this verse. The best-sustained reading gives the subjunctive in the conditional clauses, and the indicative after . So Meyer, Alford, Tregelles.
[8]Rom 14:9.[The Rec. reads . This is now generally rejected, and , accepted. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Philippi, De Wette, Meyer, Stuart, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles, and Lange. Many of the older critics also, though generally retaining before . 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 (Lachmann and Tischendorf), which is, all things considered, best sustained, and now generally accepted as original. Somewhat as follows: to , was added as a gloss; comp. 1Th 4:14. Then, through the acceptance of the gloss instead of the original word, arose the reading: (F. G.): through the acceptance of the gloss besides the original word partly: . . (Syr. Erp.), partly: . . (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 .. . (D1. E.) was made, after . . was read, through perverted criticism; in the attempt to restore , neither the spuriousness of nor the proper position of being known, the latter was understood of the earthly life of Jesus, and hence placed before .
[9]Rom 14:10.[Instead of (Rec. 3. L., many versions and fathers), is found in 1. 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. was probably inserted to correspond with Rom 14:9 (or from 2Co 5:10), though it is also claimed that 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 .
[10]Rom 14:11.[From the LXX., Isa 45:23. Instead of , the LXX. reads (at the beginning of the verse): . Instead of , the LXX. (following the Hebrew): . 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.: ; Lachmann, Tregelles.. A. C. D3. L.: ; Philippi, Meyer, De Wette. Alford brackets . The former is more usual with , hence the latter is to be preferred. The same authorities which support , insert .
[12]Rom 14:14.[. B. C. are cited by Alford in favor of (Rec.). A. D. F. G. L. read: (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 or . 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 Chrysostoms explanation: will support the former. Tischendorf varies (comp. his 7th ed., p. 58). See Winer, p. 143.
[13]Rom 14:15.[. A. B. C. D. F. G., Vulgate, and fathers: ; adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tholuck, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Jowett, Tregelles, Lange. Rec. (with no uncial authorities) some versions: ; 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 , 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: . A gloss, which is useful in the interpretation of the verse. It shows that 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.: , supported by 3. 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: , is found in 1. 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 , 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: ; adopted by modern editors generally. . A. B. F. L.: . 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 .
[17]Rom 14:21.[1. A. C, some versions and fathers, omit . Inserted in 2. B. D. F. L.; retained by critical editors generally. (Lachmann, Tischendorf in later editions, Tregelles).
[18]Rom 14:22.[After , . A. B. C. insert ; adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (no points inserted between and ). 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 . It is rejected by Philippi, De Wette, Tholuck, Meyer, Wordsworth; bracketted by Alford. Dr. Lange thinks it was inserted so as to emphasize 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 , the Rec. reads , which is found in no MS.; omitted by versions, fathers, and modern editors generally.
[20]Rom 15:2.[Instead of , ( A. B. C. D1 3. L.), we find 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 ) (the second time), with 3. A. L., some fathers. 1. B. C. D. F., Vulgate, Peshito, ; adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, Lange. B. has 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.[. A. B. C. D. L., repeat before . 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 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 ., 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. Langes 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 mans servant? He who is strongest in the Roman Church of to-day, is weak, according to the Apostles 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. 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. Langes objection, it seems the preferable view; for certainly the first part of the verse is addressed to the strong exclusively, and the , 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 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-vers. 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords 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 Lords Day, though we may admit that such observance was not yet universal; besides, the text of Rom 14:6 is disputed. Comp. Langes Comm. Matthew, Mat 7:8, p. 217; Gal 4:10, pp. 106, 109; Colossians, Col 2:16, pp. 53, 58; Haldane, Romans, pp. 688721.Also the literature of the Sabbath question, as published by the N. Y. Sabbath Committee.R.]
[37][The use of , not , 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 in any sense, but the full conviction of an educated conscience, which is here referred to.Wordsworth has a quaint fancy respecting the verb : 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 , 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 (Rom 14:10), Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, and many others, so Philippi, have, found in 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 (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 be read, then this verse introduces a limitation to the practical application of the principle of Rom 14:14 (Hodge); but if be read, then we must take the passage as breviloquent or elliptical. Tholuck and Meyer join with , …, 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 Meyers 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. Langes 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. Pauls 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 in a subjective sense. It must be distinguished from , 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 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 : The mere your brother, is an offence against love; how much greater an offence, then, if this end in in raising (causing to act against his conscience, and so commit sin, and be in danger of quenching Gods Spirit within him) by a meal of thinea 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 (), its emphatic position, and the phrase 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 Wettes 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. Langes ingenious and refined distinction.R.]
[50][Meyer properly rejects the common view, which takes as = , 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. Langes 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 faithsuch 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 recl 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][Philippis view will not be understood unless more fully cited. He says: 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 Tbingen 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 beennone 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 rsum: The editors of the final and accepted text of Pauls letters had, for a general principle, to reject nothing and add nothingbut 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. Pauls 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.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
To avoid unnecessary Contentions in the Church, from the Custom Jews and Gentiles, the Apostle directs this Chapter to the mutual Accommodation of each, in Things of small Moment.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (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.
We shall derive great improvement from what is here said, with an eye to the spirit of accommodation, in things of small moment between Jew and Gentile, if we take occasion therefrom, to make use of the same kind of reasoning, in the circumstances which concern the weaker and humbler Christian. There are great diversities of gifts, the Apostle saith, in the Church; but it is the same Spirit, who divideth to every man severally as he will, 1Co 12:11 . And there cannot be a more beautiful or engaging character in life, whether minister, or people, than the man who kindly and affectionately accommodates himself to the several situations of those in the Church, with whom he hath to do. For it is a point, which should never be lost sight of, that all the souls of the redeemed are equally dear to Christ. And, what is equally dear to Him, should be also equally dear to everyone of his members. To bear with their infirmities, to watch over their weaknesses, to be gentle and forbearing, and in every department, to manifest the Spirit of Christ, while professing to be under the influence of Christ, is a blessed testimony of belonging to Christ; or, as Scripture beautifully expresses it: strengthening the weak hands, and confirming the feeble knees, Isa 35:4 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rom 14:5
‘Do consider the immense strength of that single verse, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,’ writes Dr. Arnold of Rugby. ‘I am myself so much inclined to the idea of a strong social bond that I ought not to be suspected of any tendency to anarchy; yet I am beginning to think that the idea may be over-strained, that this attempt to merge the soul and will of the individual man in the general body is, when fully developed, contrary to the very essence of Christianity. Indeed,’ he continues, ‘so strong is the language of some parts of the New Testament in this direction, as to be an actual perplexity to me. St Paul’s language concerning it, I think, may be explained, but the refusal of our Lord to comply with some of the indifferent customs, such as washing before meals, is, when I come to consider it, so startling that I feel that there is something in it which I do not fully understand.’
References. XIV. 5. H. E. Ryle, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lv. p. 363. T. Arnold, Christian Life: its Hopes, p. 23. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 279; ibid. vol. xii. p. 270.
The Power of Association
Rom 14:7
Man is by his natural genius a social being. From the beginning of things it was ordained by God that he should not live alone. The story of Eve’s creation from one of the ribs of Adam has this everlasting spiritual truth underlying it. It is thus that the one is very closely bound up and intimately connected with the other. Man cannot live without his fellow-man, and, further, he cannot come into this world and live in this world without being first of all touched by or touching somebody else. I want to speak of the power of association as represented by the sense of touch.
I. The General Principle. The power of association dominates the whole of human life.
(a) In our troubles and sorrows is it not to the power of association that we make our appeal? We go to somebody and look for sympathy. Have some of you never experienced that wonderful sense of relief and ease and spiritual refreshment when you unburden some terrible trouble you have upon you into the ears of love and sympathy? It is so true that ‘one touch of nature makes the whole world kin’.
(b) In our joys. To what do we attribute our happiness? Is it not to the power of association that power which unites like with like, that mutual resolve of souls to stand by one another in fair weather or in foul? In all this there is the power of association, complete and beautiful. No man has yet lived who has found complete satisfaction in a self-centred life. True joy is to be found only in the power of association, and particularly in the gift of genuine and ennobling friendship.
(c) In worship. The power of association is clear and unmistakable. Look at the elaborate ritual of the Jewish Church. All religion in the old worship of God appealed directly, materially, to the sense of touch. There is the catalogue of things clean or unclean to be used or abstained from, eaten or left alone; the elaborate rules for the cleansing of things and of people. In all these injunctions we find that everything needed to be without blemish, perfect, whole everything appealing to the sense of touch. What is the spiritual teaching of that? Simply this: that we must not give to God anything that is imperfect, only that which is whole. So also all the ritual of the Christian Church appeals to the power of association to touch and to quicken our spirits, to remind us where we are and what we are doing.
II. Its Individual Application. If that be true of life generally, how does it apply to the individual soul? What are we as individuals doing to influence others by the exercise of this power of association? We feel the force of it upon ourselves. Do we appreciate the fact that we can exercise the same force upon other people? I want to remind you of the unconscious influence which every single soul here is possessed of, and which is working for weal or for woe in the world in which we live.
(a) There is the unconscious influence of religious attitude that is to say, the way we look at our religion. It has a wonderful effect on other people. There are some people who mean the very best in the world, but somehow or other they go about the world so sadly, as if religion were a dreadful penance to them. Their most cordial greeting has a nip of the east wind about it. That is absolutely unchristian.
(b) There is the unconscious influence of goodness of heart. How often little things are indicative of a man’s character. Some small attention when we least expect it, some kind word in the midst of trouble, some generous thought anticipating a need, some manly shake of the hand these things influence many lives in a way undreamed of by those who have so acted. Hinges are but small things compared with the great doors that hang upon them, but it is upon the hinges that the door depends for the opening and closing thereof. A drop of oil may make all the difference to a great locomotive engine Is not this so, too, with the gigantic piece of mechanism called human society? We can all be lubricators of the wheels of life. Yes, voluntary influence does not always indicate what a man is, but involuntary influence always does. Our involuntary influence is as much the outcome of our character as the scent is the outcome of a plant’s life. It cannot be imprisoned.
Rom 14:7
Whittier, in his introduction to Woolman’s Journal, calls attention to the fact that ‘in his lifelong testimony against wrong,’ the Quaker ‘never lost sight of the oneness of humanity, its common responsibility, its fellowship of suffering, and communion of sin. Few have ever had so profound a conviction of the truth of the Apostle’s declaration that no man liveth and no man dieth to himself. Sin was not to him an isolated fact, the responsibility of which began and ended with the individual transgressor; he saw it as a part of a vast network and entanglement, and traced the lines of influence converging upon it in the underworld of causation.’
References. XIV. 7. J. T. Bramston, Fratribus, p. 190. XIV. 7, 8. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons in Outline, p. 92. T. Barker, Plain Sermons, p. 136. XIV. 7-9. H. D. Rawnsley, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 212. J. Keble, Sermons for Easter to Ascension Day, p. 44. H. Bonar, Short Sermons for Family Reading, p. 235.
Unto the Lord
Rom 14:8
The text describes two complementary movements: the one of man towards the Lord, the other of the Lord towards men. ‘Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord;’ that is man’s movement towards God. ‘Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s,’ that is God’s movement towards man. The two movements together constitute what we call spiritual communion.
I. Let us look at the movement of man towards God. A practical controversy was tearing the Apostolic Church. How far could a Christian believer retain the customs of his old life? The Apostle enunciates no petty regulation. He gives a large principle which the individual judgment must apply to every problem in the eternal life. What is the principle? Let us begin the statement of it in this way: Every act creates a certain trend. Every act contributes its quota in the determining of destiny. Now in many people, perhaps even in the majority, this final trend of action is unconsidered. And such limitation of views issues in what we call ‘drift’. Now, in face of this peril here is the Apostle’s counsel: Choose your drift. That is to say, intelligently and deliberately choose your end, and consistently hold to it. Let that end be ‘the Lord’. And then choose your acts in relation to this end. We must live ‘unto the Lord’. That is the Christian conception of life. And if this end dominates the life it will also dominate death.
II. And now, look at the movement of God towards man. ‘Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.’ That is the complementary conception of Christian communion. ‘We are the Lord’s,’ not merely labelled property; it is a father’s possession of a child. It is, therefore, not an inert and passive possession; it surely suggests the outgoing of personality in yearning and protective regard. For what are the implications of the great word? They are to be found in the entire life and teachings of our Saviour. If we are the Lord’s, then the Lord sees us. There is individual recognition of the individual life. Frederic Harrison laughs at the suggestion that the Almighty Ruler, who inhabits the awful and abysmal depths of stellar space, will have any discernment of me. I thought that a man’s real greatness was to be estimated by his discernment of the least, and by the large use he makes of it. That certainly is the teaching of our Lord. ‘He that is faithful in that which is least is great!’ Our Lord has made it perfectly clear that the individual is not lost in the race, and that we all have personal recognition in His love. ‘He calleth His own sheep by name.’ And He not only sees me, He communicates with me. We live unto the Lord, and the Lord lives unto us. There is a holy commerce proceeding on the mystic highway between Him and me.
J. H. Jowett, The British Congregationalist, 23rd July, 1908, p. 82.
Rom 14:8
These were the last words that could be made out amid the dying ejaculations of Edward Irving: ‘If I die,’ he murmured, ‘I die unto the Lord. Amen.’
References. XIV. 8. T. T. Munger, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliii. p. 104. A. Tucker, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 559. XIV. 8, 9. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. p. 225.
Easter-tide
Rom 14:9
Jesus Christ died on Friday and rose again on what we call the Sunday, and we have by the providence of God, ever good and large, gathered around an empty tomb, and then around a risen Lord. It would be beautiful, if in the hands of a true artist, to compare the Friday and the Sunday. They belong to one another; the Sunday would not be half so bright but for the Friday. Your joy would not be so exquisite if there were not an historic background of tears and sorrow and speaking silence.
I. Now there is some great fight being fought this Friday. They have nailed His hands, and they have nailed His feet, and they have pierced His side, and the environment seems to vindicate and justify their villainy. It is all over; Job would withdraw his faith, and David would cease his song. Rest awhile, pause for a day or two; never hasten God; never try to force your own destiny; be great by being quiet. Now comes the day on which everything will be silent It must be so, because this is the third day that the Malefactor Himself indicated. He was always so bold. He did not say, I will rise in three centuries, when you will all be dead and no man will be here who could charge Me with My own words; He said, On the third day I will rise again. It was a fair challenge, square, complete. When was Jesus timid, cowardly, uncertain? When did He, if not prevaricate, yet seem to handle words with such tricks of magic as to perplex and bewilder those who heard them? Never. He said before the Friday, The Friday is coming, my friends, I warn you of it; I go to Jerusalem to suffer many things of the scribes and the elders and of the chief priests, and I go to be killed, and on the third day He knew that the hearts were breaking that loved Him, and that the third day was about as long as they could keep up at all even in solitude and secrecy and even under the apparent abandonment of their own faith in His personality and purpose. But on the third day they will give way. The soul can only hold on for a given time: if the next post but one does not bring that letter I shall die. ‘As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’ He did not keep them long waiting on that day, ‘it began to dawn’; it is not said that it fully dawned, it predawned, it sent forth itself in a kind of mimic dawning; it would require the eye of an expert look-out on one of life’s ships to see that dawning. But it is always so in Christianity, it is always after its fullest noonday beginning to dawn; it never exhausts its hope, its trumpet has always another bold tune in it. It seems sometimes as if the faith were overthrown, but ‘it began to dawn toward’ there was a great silent wondrous onward movement Enough! where God begins He continues, He completes. So there was that morning a hailing. Hail! It was one of the last words His own ears had heard but a few hours ago: ‘Hail, King of the Jews! hail!’ and He said, All hail! stop, stand still! this is a great day in Israel and in the world.
II. So we meet on Resurrection morning. We know that Christ died, we may as certainly know that Christ rose. This is part of a great evolution, part of a great demonstration of Divine energy which no man can comprehend and which no man can arrest We can do nothing against the truth, but God hath been pleased to permit us to do something for the truth. What can man do? He can kill every minister of truth, but he cannot kill the ministry. When will we look at the right points? Is the missionary dead? Yes, but missions are still going on, and nothing can hinder their advance. Is not that the blood of a head that has been clubbed to death by Rarotongan savages? Yes, that is the blood of the martyr of Erromango. Is mission work therefore done? No, it is beginning to dawn toward You can kill the minister, but not the ministry. When I was but a boy I was preaching in a little village, and whilst I was talking, I have no doubt with great energy and possibly with some incoherency, a drunken brawling man shouted, ‘We will stone you out of the town!’ And I, at eighteen, said, ‘You can easily stone me out of the town, but you cannot stone the truth out of the town’. You can kill the man, but not his work; you can crush the minister, but not the ministry; you can destroy the instrument, but not the music; you can cut off all the branches, but the root remains. Ay, but we can go down to the root too. Yes, to that root, but I am speaking about the root metaphysical, the Root of roots, the Thing, the Force, that cannot be got at, that no axe can find, and no digger can sink ground enough to discover the roots and all their fibres. So there is a root not to be touched, and out of that root there shall bud a stem more beautiful than flowers, more majestic than oaks and proudest cedars.
III. ‘Christ both died, and rose, and revived.’ That word ‘revived’ comes in like a freshet into a channel that has been waiting for the rising of the river. All the channel has been so droughty, so barren, and all the land round about has suffered from it, but there is a freshet rising, and that freshet represents true revival, relifeing. And so Christ said before the Friday, ‘I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly,’ like wave on wave, billow chasing billow, until death was ashamed and overthrown, was lost, was swallowed up in victory.
Joseph Parker, City Temple Pulpit, vol. iii. p. 156.
Rom 14:10
Paul does not mean that God will punish him, and that we may rest satisfied that our enemy will be turned into hell-fire. Rather does he mean, what we too feel, that, reflecting upon the great idea of God and on all that it involves, our animosities are softened, and our heat against our brother is cooled. From Mark Rutherford’s Deliverance.
References. XIV. 10. W. G. Rutherford, The Key of Knowledge, p. 200. F. E. Paget, Helps and Hindrances to the Christian Life, vol. i. p. 112. XIV. 10-12. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii. No. 1601. XIV. 11. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 137. XIV. 12. C. Perren, Outline Sermons, p. 306. W. H. Evans, Sermons for the Church’s Year, p. 10. J. S. Bartlett, Sermons, p. 184. J. Keble, Sermons for Advent to Christmas Eve, p. 164. R. W. Dale, The Epistle of James, p. 246. XIV. 13, 14. W. J. Hocking, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliii. p. 108. XIV. 14-21. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 71.
Rom 14:17
Using the language of accommodation to the ideas current amongst His hearers, Jesus talked of drinking wine and sitting on thrones in the kingdom of God; and texts of this kind are what popular religion promptly seized and built upon. But other pro-founder texts meanwhile there were, which remained, one may say, in shadow. This is life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent. The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. These deeper texts will gradually come more and more into notice and prominence and use.
From Matthew Arnold’s Preface to the popular edition of Literature and Dogma.
References. XIV. 17. S. A. Tipple, The Admiring Guest, p. 76. R. B. Douglas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. p. 97. Expositor (4th Series), vol. x. p. 201; ibid. (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 154; ibid. vol. x. p. 100. XIV. 17-19. W. Walsh, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lix. p. 260. XIV. 18. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 428; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 276. XIV. 19. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 4. XIV. 21. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xviii. p. 287. Penny Pulpit, No. 1487, p. 33, and No. 1548, p. 19.
Rom 14:22
Whenever conscience speaks with a divided, uncertain, and disputed voice, it is not yet the voice of God. Descend still deeper into yourself, until you hear nothing but a clear and undivided voice, a voice which does away with doubts and brings with it persuasion, light, and serenity. Happy, says the Apostle, are they who are at peace with themselves, and whose heart condemneth them not in the part they take. This inner identity, this unity of conviction, is all the more difficult the more the mind analyses, discriminates, and foresees.
Amiel.
References. XIV. 22. W. M. Sinclair, Words from St. Paul’s, p. 99. XIV. 27. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 119. XIV. 31. Ibid. vol. iii. p. 261.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Apostolic Admonitions
Rom 14
It is important to know to what subjects the Apostle Paul is confining his attention in his chapter upon Christian casuistry. He is not talking about the distinction between eternal right and eternal wrong: he is alluding wholly to questions of opinion, ceremony, ritual, formality, mechanical adjustment, and the like. This clears the ground of a thousand difficulties. “In every work regard the author’s end.” The Apostle is not submitting the Cross of Christ for diversity of opinion; he is not submitting the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, and saying to men, You can believe it or not, and the one shall just be as good as the other. In reality these are not vital questions, and yet they are questions which come up again and again, especially in early Christian experience; and to these questions which come and go the Apostle is now directing his entire attention. This chapter has been wrested, so that men have built upon it doctrines of the most objectionable kind. They have exaggerated liberty into licentiousness; they have been irreverent or indifferent or defiant, and have quoted this chapter in support of their erratic spirit and conduct. They are wholly wrong. They have forgotten what the Apostle was dealing with. It has been supposed that he was dealing with the greatest questions, whereas he was only adjusting matters of casuistry, and endeavouring to find a point of harmony and reconciliation amid tumults that were dividing the Church in a very immature state of Christian experience. Let us follow the Apostle in his reasoning according to this light.
Paul being himself a strong man, almost equally strong at every point, had a distinct doctrine about weak people. The Apostle was always careful about the “weak brother.” Yet he discharged his conscience in reference to that man by distinctly calling him weak. He never left that man under the impression that he was as good as anybody else; he always laid his hand upon the lame limb and said, You are a cripple. He never failed to point out the sightless eye, and to say, You do not see as well as some other people see. He never told the weak man a lie. Steadily and frankly he persevered in telling the weak man that he was weak, and that if anything was done on his account, it was done simply because a good many things are done for the sake of the baby of the household. But because all these concessions are made to him he does not cease to be a baby. “Him that is weak in the faith,” not the faith as represented in a body of theology, which is often erroneously and mischievously called “the faith”; as if any words of man’s collocation could swing themselves around the infinite circumference of God’s truth. Rather, him that is weak in faith, a mere child in trust; the infantile man, doubtful, cloudy, timid, groping, uncertain; willing to be right, but a very long way from having attained the sacred purpose. “…receive ye “: let him come into the house, find a position for him in the Church, enrol him on the register of those who have espoused the Cross as the symbol of their life, and the plea of their soul. But when you receive him do not make him, as the Puritans would say, question-sick. Do not receive him for the purpose of disputing with him. Seldom is any good done to a man by arguing with him about anything. The weaker he is the more disposed he will be to argue. He may have lost all his limbs, but he still retains that mischievous tongue. When you receive into the Church a man who is weak in faith, do not attempt to talk to him about his doubts. The more you talk to him about them the more he will doubt. Set before him a heroic life, show him what you do under the inspiration of religious trust, put his disputatious-ness to shame by your self-sacrifice: he will soon find that he is no longer eloquent, but only a poor chatterer of words; he will withdraw his lame arguments in the presence of your burning holiness.
Then the Apostle comes into the detail of casuistical questions: “For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is wok, eateth herbs.” We have nothing to do with these questions. The difficulty was about meats offered to idols. The question arose, Is it right to eat such meats? They have been laid upon forbidden altars, they have been mentioned under names that should be unknown in the Christian sanctuary: have they ceased to be legitimate foods? have they ceased to be nutritious meats? Ought they to be taken at the base altars and thrown into the black river, to be taken whither the river may flow? Or have they not been desecrated? are the meats still good for use? is there a healthy purpose to be served by eating them? The Apostle says, Brethren, if you think you ought not to eat these meats, let them alone: your duty is clear. But, on the other hand, another man says, The meat cannot be desecrated; it has been put to a foolish purpose religiously, but the meat, as meat, is just as good as ever, and I intend to eat it. Then, says the Apostle, you are at liberty to carry out your notions: you need not debate these things; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; it is not this view of flesh meat, and this view of vegetables, and this view of discipline; the kingdom of God is not built upon that narrow basis; it is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; a grand spiritual revelation, a holy mystery. They who would bring it under discussion as relating to ceremonies of any kind would desecrate the very religion which they profess to honour.
“Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not.” That is the danger of strength. Power is always likely to become contemptuous. Sheer strength is not the glory of any man. God’s power is nothing but for God’s mercy. The mercy that withholds the power is greater than the power would be without the mercy. When a man is himself well reformed he is apt to despise the ignorant. No truly educated man will ever despise the struggling honest mind; no really refined soul will remark upon the want of refinement in others. Partial education will be severe: whatever approaches complete education will in that measure be self-controlled, well regulated, and will be held in a spirit of modesty and trusteeship, and not in a spirit of arrogance and independence. “…and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.” The danger of weakness is fault-finding, Here is a poor cripple who cannot get off his stool: but what a tongue he has, what a file of a tongue, what a rasping tongue! How he finds fault with minister, office-bearer, fellow-member, fellow-student, fellow-worshipper! Hear how he riles and reviles, and how exasperating is his talk. Weak! see his weakness in his criticism, his fault-finding, his love of discovering weakness, or imagining it, in the character of other men. Here are two difficulties to be avoided. Paul says, You are a strong man: do not be contemptuous. Then he says, You are a weak man: do not be fault-finding, censorious, and seeking to make up for intellectual and spiritual weakness by a rasping criticism. The weak man, however, is in more danger than the strong man. Strength can be patient, modest, tranquil: but weakness is always seeking self-compensation, What can I do to make myself seen and heard and felt? Weakness will send a man into severe punishment for a mistake in spelling, in punctuation, in dating a letter: and yet that same weakness will one day be found to have misspelt every word, to have mispointed every paragraph, and to have mistaken the whole gist and purpose of life. Wherever you find a censorious man you find a weak man. There are some persons cursed with the genius of criticism.
Why is the strong man to refrain from contempt? Why is the weak man to refrain from censoriousness? Paul gives the reason at the close of the third verse “for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” That is the annihilating question. It brings every man up sharply, when he is asked to produce his title. You find fault with the minister! produce your title to open your mouth in any respectable company. You find fault with your fellow-worshipper! you say you could not do as he does; how he does it you cannot conceive: who art thou? who asked you to conceive anything? who ever troubled you with an inquiry addressed to your imagination? Let him that is without sin cast the first stone. If there is a perfect man let him rise. We should listen to his impeccability with the modesty due to deity. When men attend to their own faults they will be surprised how very little time is left to attend to the faults of other people. Are you aware that, when you are finding fault so glibly with men who have forgotten more than you ever had the capacity to acquire, there are those who are stigmatising you as little, miserable, foolish, objectionable, detestable a man they would not have within their threshold?
Is there then no standard of responsibility? The Apostle answers the question “To his own master he standeth or falleth…. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…. Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” It is because there is a standard set up by hands Divine that we are not called upon to play the judge over one another. The universe does not begin and end in our individuality. Let no man suppose that he can escape final criticism: but the glory and the advantage of that criticism are to be found in its perfectness, for it will be conducted by him who knows us in and out, through and through, ancestrally, and circumstantially. Remember it is because there is an eternal judgment seat that we are released from the necessity of fault-finding, criticism, and judgment. “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves… Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” The time of judgment is not yet. There may be tares among the wheat of your neighbour’s character: let both grow together until the harvest; the discriminating angels will separate the one from the other. If we must be frank, and, indeed, what may appear to be objectionable, let us do it as if we would rather not do it; never let us do it defiantly, boastfully, vain-gloriously, as who should say, I have an eye for faults: beware how you conduct yourselves in my presence. Let us rather fall down in self-accusation, and venture with timid modesty to exercise the work of criticism where it is needful such work should really be done.
The Apostle proceeds to deal with special cases: “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.” Here is the importance of the principle with which we started. About what days is the Apostle talking? Not about the Sabbath day at all. No man can have what he believes to be a Divine commandment steadily before his eyes, and then say to all other men, You can treat that commandment just as you please: if you like it, keep it; if you do not like it, neglect it: it really makes no matter; please yourselves. The Apostle could not so conduct a Christian argument. He is talking about days that have been set aside by scribes and Pharisees, and pedants and Judaisers and interlopers, and inventors of ceremonies and festivals and observances. One man finds it good to fast one day in the week; Paul says, Then by all means let him fast, because he finds it good for his soul thus to punish his body. Another man finds it quite possible to pray after every meal and to make every meal a sacrament; he has no need to take a day out of the week for the purpose of religious fasting; the Apostle says, Then by all means let him have the liberty of his own judgment and conscience; where there is no written, distinct, positive law men are left to realise the circumstances in the light of their own experience, and they are entitled to enjoy the liberty of their spiritual conviction. This is apostolic doctrine. But the man who fasts cannot let the man who feasts alone: the man who feasts finds it difficult not to remark upon the ascetic who has his days of fasting. Thus liberty is impugned, thus liberty is dishonoured. The Church which ought to represent every possible variety of opinion upon disputed questions is turned into a beargarden. It should be the glory of the Church that it can differ and yet agree. The Church will never be one in mere matters of opinion. The Lord allows the liberty of indi vidual judgment upon a thousand questions. They may be questions of climate, circumstance, individual condition, family limitations. The Lord does not dishonour the human intellect or dismiss from his service the human reason; he says, you are responsible beings, you have intelligence, you can saturate your souls in prayer, you can come to the consideration of every subject in a reverential spirit: according to your faith, so ye shall be judged. Many persons have thought that the Apostle was talking about the Sabbath day, and consequently they had opened all their museums and all their picture-galleries, and run all the omnibuses they could lay their hands upon, on the strength of the fifth and sixth verses. No man would be more surprised at that interpretation than the Apostle Paul himself would be. The Apostle had a way of taking some things for granted which ought never to be disputed. The Apostle often assumed that he was writing to common-sense men. If it had occurred to that ardent and dazzling mind that there were fools who thought a commandment could be trifled with, he would have started and conducted his argument accordingly. He comes amongst the inventions of the Church, its calendared feast days and fast days and new moons and observances, and he says, I am not going to interfere with these things in any arrogant spirit: really, much must be left to individual reason and individual conscience: if a fast day will do you good, have it; if you can do without fasting, continue in your usual course of life: only let there be no bickering, disputing, fault-finding, censoriousness: we are neither saved nor lost by our fast days. All reason is on the side of the Apostle, and all wisdom confirms the wisdom of his admonitions. There are no such days of dissipation in any country as the days of fasting. Men are never so drunk as on the fasting days. There is a time-bill for fast days, and that is generally about the middle of the day when everybody can see you, but as the sun goes down, and the curtains are drawn, and the family lights are set ablaze, then say if it were not well that these beasts fasted before they began that tumult at the trough. “When thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret.”
Note how wondrously the Apostle always comes from the discussion of little disputable questions and fortifies himself by great principles: “For 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.” That is Pauline. Even when you bring this mighty mind to the consideration and adjustment of casuistical detail, at the very first opening he lifts his pinions and flies into broad heavens. If men had greater principles they would have less difficulty in detail. If we were sounder in heart we should have fewer difficulties in the head. If our spirit were really baptised into the Spirit of Christ we should know a thousand things without learning them. We need not be drilled into fast days and feast days, and little arrangements and small disciplines and stipulations with ourselves which only show our feebleness: we should know what to do, by the inspired spirit, the refined and sensitive soul, that knows God afar off, and that feels the law, and therefore need not have it written.
The Apostle must, however, come back to reason with men who are frail of mind and uncertain in spirit; so he says, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” See the brother, not the sinner; see the brother, not the wanderer; see the man, rather than the criminal. The tendency of our minds, being immature, imperfect, unfurnished as to the higher qualities of soul, is to look upon circumstances, external conditions. The magistrate is in infinite haste to seize the criminal; perhaps it is well he should be so: the Lord, the Christ of God, the Saviour of the world, does not see the criminal; he sees the man, the woman, the child, the image of God, for who has eyes like Christ, who can see through the shell into the kernel, who can penetrate the environment and see the living soul?
What then are we to do? Paul answers “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” You do a great many things for the baby. That baby is the master of the household, in a certain sense and for a limited time; but if he remain a baby more than five or ten years you have a right to chastise him and tell him that his babyhood has ceased. So we cannot have this weak brother amongst us over long; he must be getting better by the prayer, the thought, the exhortation, and the example of those amongst whom he is living. If he continue to whine much longer he must be put in a room by himself, that he may admire his own shadow. Still, the Apostle will be patient if he can. He says there are some things which may be done with a good conscience, and may not be done with a good conscience. There are some amusements which you might enjoy, and yet if they make a man who is weaker than you are really soul-sorrowful; well, think of it: will it not be better to deny yourselves than to mortally offend that poor cripple? To that principle there is no answer. It is the principle of the Cross, it is the principle of self-sacrifice, it is the Divine principle of self-denial. If any man should say, The reason why I abstain from meat or vegetables or wine is that I am trying to help some other man to be a better man than he is, to that argument there is no reply; it is beneficent, it is grand, it is Divine. The Apostle Paul puts the whole case with inspired vividness and liberality. A thing may be good in itself, but another man is hurt by certain uses of it; then consider the man rather than consider yourself, and for his sake refrain from doing much which to yourselves would be perfectly innocent.
“Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” The kingdom of God has nothing to do with externals. The kingdom of God is not measured by what a man abstains from, or what a man partakes of, or what a man’s opinion is about casuistical questions: the kingdom of God is, like God himself, intensely, ineffably, infinitely spiritual.
“For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure: but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Yet we must not pamper the weak man too much, or he will become weaker. We may touch even the vanity of weakness and make it intolerable, so that a man only needs to have a prejudice, when he knows that all the good men of the Church will acknowledge his prejudice and do as he wants them to do, while he is nursing this foolish prejudice in his foolish heart. Surely there must be some public aspect of this deference which is perfectly consistent with the larger liberty which men may enjoy in the absence of the weak man. There are some things you would not say before your child, yet you would not hesitate to say them when the child was absent; there are certain things you would never dream of doing in the nursery, but you would not hesitate to do them in the more public rooms of the house. There are certain things you would never allow the weak man to know that you even thought of. He has no right to be your master, to be the critic of the whole range of your life; and you have no need to call him in and say, Weak man, I want thee: I am thinking of a certain course of conduct, I am organising a policy of life: come and tell me what thou thinkest of it. Certainly not. It would be monstrous, irrational, intolerable. And yet the great principle of the Apostle remains the same royal, far-seeing in sagacity, all-saving in beneficence; the sum total of the meaning being this If by any means you can help a weak man to become a strong man do it: but if you are wasting your life, and the man becomes no stronger, then consider what is best to be done.
“Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God.” This is the law of sacred privacy. Here is the sanctuary within which great liberty may be enjoyed. Hast thou faith? Talk it out with God; let God be the companion of all thy indulgences, and they will be all right; always have God in the sanctuary of thy confidence, and say to him, Lord, I can do this in thy presence; I could not do it in the presence of my weak brother. Even along this line of private and sacred liberty men must exercise sanctified reason. This applies to matters theological, though the Apostle did not intend such matters to be thought of in this connection. Hast thou a doubt? Have it to thyself. We do not want any man to stand in the Christian pulpit and tell us what he doubts about: we want him to tell us what he believes, and what he wants us to believe, and what he lives upon, from what fount he draws his immortality. Hast thou faith the larger faith, the faith that would be called heterodoxy by those whose ignorance enables them to be fluent? Have that larger faith to thyself before God. Dost thou see a new era coming for the Church? Do not name it yet, because many persons would not understand it. Dost thou see a larger inspiration, a nobler brotherhood, a sublimer millennium? Keep that faith to thyself before God: do not be wantonly defiant, do not trample down boundaries and limitations ruthlessly, but know that as sure as thy thought is true it will come to pass, yea, it will come quietly, quietly like the dawn: men will not know that the light has come until they see it on the mountain tops hastening down to the green valleys. Who ever heard the wheel of the sun grinding its way up into the orient? Who ever heard the blade of grass making a noise as it rose into the air and then filled the ear with the corn meant for the satisfaction of human hunger? Who ever saw himself grow? What noise do the stars make as they sparkle in the heavens? Many things come noiselessly; especially will this be the case with the kingdom of heaven. It cometh not with observation. Do not bluster about great liberties; they will come little by little, and the time will arrive when all we shall have to do will be to welcome men to the enjoyment of their freedom. This is the sanctuary of Christ’s truth. These reconciliations and harmonies have been made possible by the Cross. The Apostle never ceases even in this reasoning to cite the example of Christ. It is by Christ men have liberty; by Christ men are restrained from the enjoyment of much liberty; by Christ men are enabled not to contemn the weak; by Christ the weak are restrained from criticising the strong; by Christ a man is taught what to eat, what to drink, what to take, what to let alone. If the Spirit of Christ be in a man, he will no longer have difficulties about the practical conduct of life; he will know and be persuaded, in the language of the Apostle, what to do, and how to do it, and he will do everything, great and small, in the presence of the all-judging Christ.
Prayer
Almighty God, thou has set us amidst great wonders; this moment a thousand men are dying, this moment a thousand men are being born into the world; there is a continual outgoing and incoming, and the Lord is Keeper of all. Yonder is the wedding feast, and here is the funeral ceremony; here there is great sorrow, and yonder there is naught but joy, loud, pure, dominant. We live in this world, so intermixed, so self-contradictory; thou hast put us here to be educated, chastened, ennobled. Watch over all the ministries of thine own creation, and adapt them to the fulfilling of thy purposes of love. May we be large hearted, tender in feeling, accessible to every honest petition of need and pain; may we answer the petitions of weakness in all the fulness of our strength. We bless thee for health and reason, for continued faculty, for force of character; we thank thee also for vows that are courageously borne, burdens that are bravely carried; we thank thee for all the ministry of education continually appealing to our lives. Let the sick-chamber draw thee into its sadness, O thou Healer of men. Hear the song of those who have great gladness, and who wish to praise thee as they had never praised thee before. Lead the blind by a way that they know not; show us the worthlessness of all men’s inventions if they be not founded in the uprightness of God. Pity the little earth with continual tears; it is still thine; vagrant, it is still of the household of the stars; thou hast not set thy foot upon it and extinguished it, therefore the continuance of thy patience is itself an assurance that thou wilt bring all this ministry of sin and heartache and weariness to a blessed consummation. The Lord reigneth; we will abide in the tabernacle of the Almighty, and hide ourselves under the wings of his strength. The Lord help poor lives to struggle a day or two longer, and say unto them that by thy grace on the third day they shall be perfected. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XX
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION BY GRACE APPLIED TO PRACTICAL LIFE
Rom 12:1-16:27
The prevalent characteristic of all Paul’s teachings concerning the gospel is the unfailing observance of the order and relation of doctrine and morals. He never “puts the cart before the horse,” and never drives the horse without the cart attached and following after. He was neither able to conceive of morals not based on antecedent doctrine, nor to conceive of doctrine not fruiting in holy living. He rigidly adhered to the Christ-idea, “First make the tree good, and then the fruit will be good.” His clear mind never confounded cause and effect. To his logical and philosophical mind it was a reversal of all natural and spiritual law to expect good trees as a result of good fruit, but rather good fruit evidencing a good tree. So he conceived of justification through faith, and regeneration through the Spirit as obligating to holy living. If he fired up his doctrinal engine it was not to exhaust its steam in whistling, but in sawing logs, or grinding grist, or drawing trains.
The modern cry, “Give us morals and away with dogma,” would have been to him a philosophical absurdity, just as the antinomian cry, “faith makes void the law let us sin the more that grace may abound,” was abhorrent and blasphemous to him.
A justification of a sinner through grace that delivered from the guilt of sin was unthinkable to him if unaccompanied by a regeneration that delivered from the love of sin, and a sanctification that delivered from the dominion of sin.
He expected no good works from the dead, but insisted that those made alive were created unto good works. His philosophy of salvation, in the order and relation of doctrine and morals, is expressed thus in his letter to Titus: “For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men instructing us to the intent that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works.” “But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men” (Tit 2:11-15 ; Tit 3:4-8 ).
So in every letter there is first the doctrinal foundation, and then the application to morals. But as in this letter we have the most complete and systematic statement of the doctrines of grace as a foundation (Romans 9-11) so in this, the following section (Romans 12-15), we have the moat elaborate superstructure of morals.
The analysis and order of thought in this great section are
1. Salvation by grace through faith obligates the observance of all duties toward God the Father on account of what he does for us in the gift of his Son, in election, predestination, justification, and adoption (Rom 12:1 ).
2. It obligates the observance of all duties toward God the Holy Spirit for what he does in us in regeneration and sanctification (Rom 12:2 ).
3. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the church, with its diversity of gifts in unity of body (Rom 12:3-13 ).
4. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the individual neighbor in the outside world (Rom 12:14-21 ).
5. It obligates the observance of all duties to the neighbors, organized as society or state (Rom 13:1-13 ).
6. It obligates the observance of all duties arising from the Christian’s individual relation to Christ the Saviour (Rom 13:14 ; Rom 14:7-12 ).
7. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the individual brother in Christ (Rom 14:1-15:7 ).
8. The last obligation holds regardless of the race distinctions, Jew and Gentile (Rom 15:8-24 ), and includes the welcome of the apostle to the Gentiles, prayer for the welcome and success of his service toward the Jewish Christians in their need (Rom 15:25-29 ) and prayer for his deliverance from unbelieving Jews (Rom 15:30-33 ).
As to the sum of these obligations
1. They cover the whole scope of morals, whether in the decalogue, as given to the Jews, or the enlarged Christian code arising from grace.
2. They conform to relative proportions, making first and paramount morals toward God, whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, not counting morals at all which leave out God in either his unity of nature, or trinity of persons, and making that second, subordinate and correlative which is morals toward men.
The duty toward God the Father, in view of what he has done for us in grace and mercy, is to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God (Rom 12:1 ) and respect his prerogative (Rom 12:19 ) which is illustrated by Paul elsewhere. He says, “I die daily,” meaning that though alive his members were on the rack of death all the time. He says, “I mortify my members,” and, “I keep my body under,” i.e., he kept his redeemed soul on top, dominating his body. He made his body as “Prometheus bound” on the cold rock of Caucasus, vultures devouring his vitals every day as they were renewed every night, a living death.
Our duty toward God, the Holy Spirit, in view of what he graciously does in us is found in Rom 12:2 : Negatively Let not the regenerate soul be conformed with the spirit and course of this evil world, whether in the lust of the eye or pride of life. Positively Be transformed in continual sanctification in the renewing of the mind. That is, working out the salvation which the Spirit works in us, as he, having commenced a good work in us (regeneration) continues it (through sanctification) until the day of Jesus Christ. Or, as this apostle says elsewhere, Christ, having been formed in us the hope of glory, we are changed into that image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord.
The duties toward the church are found in Rom 12:3-13 :
1. Not to think more highly of one’s self in view of -the other members of the church. Here are a lot of people in one church; now let not one member put himself too high in view of the other members of that church.
2. To think only according to the proportion of faith given to him for the performance of some duty. If I am going to put an estimate upon myself in the relation to my church members, a standard or estimate should be, What is the proportion of faith given to me? Say A has so much, C has so much, D has so much, and E has least of all; then E ought not to think himself the biggest of all. The standard of judgment is the proportion of faith given to each member.
3. He must respect the unity of the church as a body. In that illustration used the church is compared to a body having many members. The hand must not say, “I am everything,” and the eye of the body must not say, “I am everything,” nor the ear, “I am everything,” nor the foot, “I am everything.” In estimating we have to estimate the function of each part, the proportion of power given to that part and it is always not as a sole thing, but in its relation to every other part that is a duty that a church member must perform. Sometimes a man easily forgets that he is just one of many in the organism.
4. He must respect its diversity of gifts. That is one part of it that I comply with. If there is anything that rejoices my heart, it is the diversity of gifts that God puts in the church. I never saw a Christian in my life that could not do some things better than anybody else in the world. I would feel meaner than a dog if I didn’t rejoice in the special gifts of any other member in the church. What a pity it would be if we had just one kind of a mold, and everybody was run through like tallow so as to make every candle alike. The duty of the church is to respect the unity of the body, and its diversity of gifts.
5. Each gift is to be exercised with its appropriate corresponding limitation.
The duties to the individual neighbor of the outside world, even though hostile to us, are found in Rom 12:14-21 :
1. To bless him when he persecutes.
2. To be sympathetic toward him, rejoicing in his joy) and weeping in his sorrow.
3. Several Christians should not be of different mind toward him. The expression in the text is to be like-minded. What is the point of that? We are dealing now with individuals outside. Here is A, a Christian; B, a Christian; G, a Christian; and the outsider is watching. A makes one impression on his mind, B makes a different one, and G makes still a different one. The influence from these several Christians does not harmonize; it is not like-minded; but if he says that A, B, G, all in different measures perhaps, be every one of the same mind, then he sees that there is a unifying power in Christians. How often do we hear it said, “If every Christian were like you, I would want to be one, but look yonder at that deacon, or at that sister.” We should be like-minded to those outside so that every Christian that comes in may make a similar impression for Christ’s sake.
4. We should not, in dealing with him, respect big outsiders only, but condescend to the lowly to men of low-estate. Some of them are very rich, some of them are influential socially, some of them are what we call poor, country folk. We should not be high-minded in our dealings with these sinners, but condescend to men of low estate. Let them feel that we are willing to go and help them.
5. We should not let our wisdom toward him be self-conceit, i.e., let it not seem to him that way.
6. When he does evil to us, we should not repay in kind.
7. We should let him see that we are honest men. Ah me, how many outsiders are repelled because all Christians do not provide things honest in the sight of the outside world!
8. So far as it lieth in us we should be peaceable with him. That means that it is absolutely impossible to be peaceable with a man that has no peace in him. He wants to fuss anyhow, and goes around with a chip on his shoulder. He goes around snarling and showing his teeth. There are some people that are not peaceable, but so far as our life is concerned, we should be peaceable with them.
9. We should not avenge on him wrongs done us by him. Vengeance belongs to God; we should give place to God’s wrath.
10. We should feed him if hungry, and give him drink if thirsty.
11. We should not allow ourselves to be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. We should not get off when we come in contact with evil people, but just hang on and overcome evil with good.
The duties to the state are as follows:
1. Be subject to higher powers, and do not resist them, for (1) God ordained them. (2) Makes them a terror to evil works. (3) God’s minister for good. (4) And for conscience sake we must respect the state.
2. Pay our taxes.
3. Whatever is due to each office: “Render honor to whom honor is due.”
4. Keep out of debt: “Owe no man anything but good will.”
5. Keep the moral code: “Do not steal; do not commit adultery; do not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s, and thus love thy neighbor.”
6. Avoid the world’s excesses, revels, and such like.
The duties toward God the Son, in view of what he has done for us and in view of our vital union with him, are set forth in Rom 14:7-12 :
1. Negatively: Live not unto self.
2. Positively: Live unto Jesus, respecting his prerogatives and servants.
Let us now look at the duties to individual Christians. We have considered the Christians as a body. What are the duties to individual Christians? Rom 14:1-15:7 contains the duty to individual Christians. Let us enumerate these duties somewhat:
1. Receive the weak in faith. We have a duty to every weak brother; receive him, but not to doubtful disputations. If we must have our abstract, metaphysical, hair-splitting distinctions, let us not spring them on the poor Christian that is Just alive.
2. We should not judge him censoriously, instituting a comparison between us and him; we should not say to him, “Just look at me.”
3. We should not hurt him by doing things, though lawful to us, that will cause him to stumble. The explanation there is in reference to a heathen custom. The heathen offered sacrifices to their gods, and after the sacrifice they would hang up the parts not consumed and sell as any other butchered meat. Could we stand up like Paul and say, “It won’t hurt me to eat that meat, but there is a poor fellow just born into the kingdom, and he is weak in the faith. He sees me eating this meat that has been offered in sacrifice to idols, and he stumbles, therefore I will not eat meat”? He draws the conclusion that if a big fellow can do that he can too, and he goes and worships the idols. The strong) through the exercise of his liberty that he could have done without, caused his fall into idolatry. That is what he meant when he wrote, “Do not hurt him; do not cause him to stumble.” He gives two reasons why we must not cause him to stumble on account of a little meat. He says, (a) “Because the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. (b) If we consider this weak brother, our consideration will be acceptable to Christ, and approved of men, but if we trample on the poor fellow that is weak in the faith, Christ won’t approve of it, and men won’t approve of it.”
4. Follow the things that make for peace. It is individual Christians that we are talking about, and we come in contact with them where we have A, B, G, D, and E, and the first thing we know a little root of bitterness springs up among them and stirs up a disagreement. The point is that we should follow the things that make for peace, just as far as we can, and sometimes that will take us a good ways. He gives this illustration where he says, “If my eating meat offered to idols causes my brother to stumble, then I am willing to take a total abstinence pledge.” Then he extends it: “Nor drink wine, nor do anything whereby my brother is caused to stumble.” There is meat other than that which is offered to idols.
5. Bear his infirmities. One man said, “There is much of human nature in the mule, but more of the mule in human nature.” The best man I ever knew had some infirmities, and I can see some of mine with my eyes shut, and I believe better with them shut than with them open. We all have infirmities in some direction or another,
6. We should seek to please him rather than to please ourselves. We are not to sacrifice a principle, but if we can please him without sacrificing a principle, rather than please ourselves, why not do it? Let us make him feel good if we can. This is the duty to the individual Christian.
The duties of Christian Jews to Gentile neighbors are found in Rom 15:8-24 . There they are all elaborated. Even in the Jew’s Bible, all through its parts, it is shown that God intended to save the Gentiles. The duty of Gentile Christians to the Jews is found in Rom 15:27 , showing that there is a debt and that it ought to be paid.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the prevalent characteristics of all Paul’s teachings concerning the gospel? Illustrate.
2. What is Paul’s attitude toward the modern cry, “Give us morals and away with dogma,” and how does he express his conviction on this subject elsewhere?
3. How is this thought especially emphasized in this letter?
4. What is the analysis and order of thought in this letter in Romans 12-15?
5. What may we say as to the sum of these obligations?
6. What is the duty toward God the Father, in view of what he has done for us in grace and mercy?
7. What is the meaning of “living sacrifice”? Illustrate.
8. What are our duty toward God the Holy Spirit, in view of what he graciously does in us?
9. What are our duties toward the church?
10. What are our duties to the individual neighbor of the outside world, even though hostile to us?
11. What are our duties to the state?
12. What are our duties toward God the Son, in view of what he has done for us and in view of our vital union with him?
13. What are the duties to individual Christians?
14. What are the duties of Christian Jews to Gentile neighbors?
XXI
SOME FRAGMENTS OF CHAPTERS 14-16
These scriptures have been covered generally in the discussion already. So in this chapter it is our purpose only to gather up the fragments that nothing may be lost. Then let us commence by expounding Rom 14:9 :
1. The revised version here is better than the common version.
2. The death of Christ was on the cross; the living after death is his resurrection life in glory. (Compare Rev 1:18 .)
3. The end of Christ’s dying and reviving is said to be that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living, the dead meaning those sleeping in the grave to be raised from the grave at his coming.
The latter clause of Rom 14:14 does not make our thought of what is sin the standard of sin, but God’s law alone determines that. It means that when a man violates his own conception of law he is in spirit a sinner, seeing that he goes contrary to his standard.
The doctrine of Rom 14:20-21 is that what is not sin per se may become sin under certain conditions arising from our relations to others. For example:
1. Eating meat offered to idols is lawful per se, (Rom 14:14 ; 1Co 8:4 ).
2. But if it cause a weak brother to worship idols, then charity may justify a total abstinence pledge, (Rom 14:21 ; 1Co 8:13 ).
3. This thing lawful per se, but hurtful in its associations and effects on the weak, may be also the object of church prohibition, the Holy Spirit concurring, (Act 15:29 ),
4. And a church refusing to enforce the prohibition becomes the object of Christ’s censure and may forfeit its office or lampstand (Rev 2:14-16 ).
In this whole chapter Rom 14 , particularly in the paragraph, Rom 14:22-23 , (1) what is the meaning of the word “faith,” (2) does the closing paragraph make all accountability dependent on subjective moral conviction, and (3) does it teach that the virtues of unbelievers are sins?
1. Faith, in this chapter throughout, does not so much refer to the personal acceptance of Christ as to the liberty in practice to which that acceptance entitles. So that, “weak in faith,” Rom 14:1 , does not imply that some strongly accept Christ and others lightly. But the matter under discussion is, What liberty in practice does faith allow with reference to certain specified things, the lawfulness or expediency of which may be a matter of scruple in the sensitive but uninformed conscience of some? One may have faith in Christ to receive him though in his ignorance he may not go as far as another in the conception of the liberty to which this faith entitles him as to what foods are clean or unclean, what days are holy or common and as to partaking in feasts of meats which have been offered to idols.
2. The “whatsoever” of Rom 14:23 is neither absolute nor universal in its application. It is limited, first, to the specified things or their kind; and second, to believers, having no reference to outsiders making no profession of faith.
3. Subjective moral conviction is not a fixed and ultimate standard of right and wrong, which would be a mere sliding scale, but it is God’s law; yet this chapter, and particularly its closing paragraph, seems to indicate that the willful violation of conscience contains within itself a seed of destruction as has been intimated in Rom 2:14-16 .
4. If this whole chapter was not an elaboration of the duties of a Christian toward his fellow Christian, both presumed to be members of one body, the particular church, it might plausibly be made to appear that “faith” in this chapter means belief of what is right and wrong. The theme of Rom 16 is the courteous recognition of the Christian merits and labors of all workers for Christ, each in his own or her own sphere. The great lessons of this chapter are
1. As we have in this letter the most complete and systematic statement of Christian doctrine, and the most systematic and elaborate application of morals based on the doctrine, so appropriately its conclusion is the most elaborate and the most courteous recognition of the Christian merits and labors of all classes of kingdom workers in their respective spheres.
2. With the letter to Philemon it is the highest known expression of delicate and exquisite courtesy.
3. It is a revelation of the variety and value of woman’s work in the apostolic churches, and in all her fitting spheres of activity.
4. It is a revelation of the value of great and consecrated laymen in the work of the kingdom.
5. It is a revelation of the fellowship of apostolic Christians and their self-sacrificing devotion to each other.
6. It magnifies the graces of hospitality.
7. It magnifies the power of family religion whether of husband and wife, brother and sister, more distant kindred, or master and servant.
8. It digs up by the roots a much later contention and heresy of one big metropolitan church in a city, with a dominant bishop, exercising authority over smaller churches and “inferior clergy” in that it clearly shows that there was not in central Rome one big church, with a nascent pope, lording it over suburban and village churches. There was no hero, no “church of Rome,” but several distinct churches in Rome whose individuality and equality are distinctly recognized.
9. It shows the fellowship of churches, however remote from each other) and their comity and co-operation in kingdom work.
10. It shows in a remarkable way how imperial Rome with its worldwide authority, its military roads and shiplines, its traffic to and fro from center to each point of the circumference of world territory and its amalgamation of nations, was a providential preparation for the propagation of a universal religion.
11. The case of Phoebe (Rom 16:1 ) in connection with hints here and elsewhere, particularly 1Ti 3:11 , sandwiched between verses 10 and 12, seems to prove the office of deaconess in the apostolic churches, of the propriety and apparent necessity of which there can be no question.
12. The various names of those saluted and saluting, about thirty-five in all, indicating various nationalities, not only show that the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles is broken down in the churches, but that in the kingdom “there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, but Christ is all and in all.”
13. But the lesson seems greatest in its mercy and privileges conferred on women and slaves.
14. The homiletic value, in pulpit themes suggested, from these various names, labors and conditions, which Spurgeon seems to have recognized most of all preachers.
Let us now expound the entreaty in Rom 16:17-18 , containing the following points:
1. We need to distinguish between those “causing the divisions” and those “causing occasions of stumbling.” The “divisions” would most likely come from a bigoted and narrow Jew insisting on following Moses in order to become a Christian, as in the churches of Galatia, Corinth, and elsewhere, but those “causing occasions of stumbling” (as in Rom 14:14-22 ) would likely be Gentiles insisting on the extreme of liberty in the eating of meats offered to idols, and like things.
2. While both classes are in the church, and not outsiders, as many teach, yet neither class possesses the spiritual mindedness and charity of a true Christian, but under the cloak of religion they serve their own passions for bigotry in one direction or license in another direction, utterly misapprehending the spiritual character of the kingdom of God.
3. Both classes are to be avoided as enemies of the cross of Christ. Compare Phi 3:18 ; Gal 5:19-23 . In Rom 16:20 there are three points:
1. There is an allusion to the promise in (Gen 3:15 ) that the seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.
2. This was fulfilled by Christ’s triumph on the cross over Satan (Col 2:15 ).
3. And will be fulfilled in all Christ’s seed at the final advent.
QUESTIONS
1. What three things noted on Rom 14:9 ?
2. Does the latter clause of Rom 14:14 make our thought of what is sin the standard of sin? If not, what does it mean?
3. What the doctrine of Rom 14:20-21 ? Give examples.
4. In the whole of Rom 14 , particularly in Rom 14:22-23 , (1) What is the meaning of the word “faith”? (2) Does the closing paragraph make all accountability dependent on subjective moral conviction? (3) Does it teach that the actions of unbelievers are sins?
5. What the great lessons of Rom 16 ?
6. What preacher seems to have most recognized the homiletic value of this chapter?
7. Expound the entreaty in Rom 16:17-18 .
8. What the three points of Rom 16:20 ?
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.
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 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.’
., see reff.: the particular weakness consisted in a want of broad and independent principle, and a consequent bondage to prejudices.
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. , 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.
.] ‘ give him your hand ,’ as Syr. (Thol.): ‘count him one of you:’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him.
] but not with a view to : ‘do not adopt him as a brother, in order then to begin’
. .] discernments of thoughts , lit.: i.e. disputes in order to settle the points on which he has scruples .’ In both the reff., has the meaning of ‘ discernment of ,’ ‘the power of distinguishing between.’ And 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 than ‘ad altercationes disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ad certamina cogitationum,’ as Estius: and are adopted by most of the ancient and modern Commentators.
Rom 12:1 to Rom 15:13 .] PRACTICAL EXHORTATIONS FOUNDED ON THE DOCTRINES BEFORE STATED. And first, ch. 12 general exhortations to a Christian life .
Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13 .] ON THE CONDUCT TO BE PURSUED TOWARDS WEAK AND SCRUPULOUS BRETHREN. There is some doubt who the 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 [ Rom 14:14 ], and again the argument of ch. Rom 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, , . 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.
Rom 14:1 . : as Godet points out, the part. as opposed to , denotes one who is for the time feeble, but who may become strong. : 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. 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 . : not with a view to deciding (or passing sentence on) his doubts. The 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 see 1Co 12:10 , Heb 5:14 .
Romans Chapter 14
The apostle now proceeds to treat of a question exceedingly delicate and critical, especially in days and places where the saints consisted of any considerable mixture of converts, brought out of systems so opposed as those of Jews and Gentiles. What to the strong in faith is an indifferent matter may trouble the conscience of those who are weak, as the apostle here distinguishes them. The weak were such Christians as were still shackled in conscience by their old Jewish observances, as to days, meats, etc., by distinctions not moral but ceremonial; the strong were those who saw in their death with Christ the end to all such bondage and enjoyed liberty in the Spirit. Carefully must we guard against the offensive misinterpretation that the weak mean those who tampered with evil. Contrariwise so fearful were they of sin that they were needlessly burdened and thus cherished a conscience not tender only, which is of the utmost moment for all, but scrupulous. But they were in no way lax, which is an evil of the greatest magnitude and only exaggerated, not diminished, by increase of knowledge. The weak were really ignorant of the liberty wherewith Christ has set us free, and hence apt to burden themselves continually where they might have found rest for their souls. They knew not that His yoke is easy and His burden light.
The practice to which brethren are called in such matters is mutual forbearance (Rom 14 , Rom 15:7 ), all agreeing in doing what they do to the Lord, spite of difference in judgment of what should be done. Room is thus left for growth in knowledge as the word of God opens to our faith, while conscience meanwhile is respected. “Now him that is weak in faith receive, not to decisions of reasonings. One believeth that he may eat all things,* while he that is weak eateth herbs. 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. Who art thou that judgest another’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth; but he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand. One esteemeth day above day, while another esteemeth every day. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day to [the] Lord regardeth [it], [and he that regardeth not the day to the Lord regardeth [it] not.] And he that eateth to [the] Lord eateth, for he thanketh God; and he that eateth not to [the] Lord eateth not and thanketh God. For none of us liveth to himself, and none to himself dieth; for both if we live, to the Lord we live, and if we die, to the Lord we die. Therefore, both whether we live and whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this [end] Christ died and lived, that he should rule over both dead and living. And why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou too despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, [As] I live, saith [the] Lord, to me shall bend every knee, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then each of us shall give account about himself to God.” (Ver. 1-12.)
*Calvin’s criticism on the clause clearly demonstrates his own incompetence for questions of this sort. “In diversa lectione quid sequitus fuerit Erasmus, non video. Mutilam enim sententiam reddidit, quum plena sit in verbis Pauli; et pro articulo relativo improprie posuit: Alius quidem credit. Nec illud asperum aut coactum videri debet, quod infinitivum pro imperativo accipio; quoniam ista loquendi formula Paulo usitatissima est.” There is no difference of reading here; and Erasmus is as right as Calvin is wrong. “Qui credit vescatur quibusvis” is a version so unfaithful that even Beza must needs agree substantially with Erasmus against his leader. The Vulgate (“credit se manducare”) is an instance that what seems most literal may be erroneous and absurd.
Literally, “judgeth.” The word means originally to pick or choose, hence to decide, sentence, prefer, or even condemn.
The bracketed clause does not appear in A B C D E F G, besides cursives, Vulg., Cop., Aeth., with various Greek and Latin fathers,
The common reading has no serious support of manuscripts. There is much discrepancy in the copies; but the best text is what I have here translated.
It is obvious that the Gentiles, as having been outside the law, world be least affected by such scruples. But the apostle puts the difference on a ground far deeper and holier than any such accidental and circumstantial distinction after the flesh. A believer whether a Jew or a Greek might freely realize his deliverance from questions of meats or days. Not a few Gentiles in those days knew the law and could not but feel the immeasurable superiority of its institutions as compared with the abominations of the heathen. So we might have difficulty in understanding that those regulations given by the true God through Moses to His people could vanish away, null and void for the Christian. Hence therefore we hear of him that is weak in the faith, as the next chapter opens with the conduct which becomes us who are strong in bearing the infirmities of the weak, the apostle identifying himself of course with such as see earthly restrictions at an end. But while grace alone produces strength in the faith, there is far more behind in the grace which produces it, and what savours more characteristically of Christ. The knowledge of faith is good; the love that is of God, of which Christ was the perfect expression, is still better; and he who has that knowledge is above all called to walk in this love, as indeed every one who is born of God must be. The question of eating and days may concern the least things, but it can only be rightly solved by the deepest truth and the richest grace. Both come through Jesus Christ, and are the portion really of the Christian. But how little Christians appreciated Christianity then, how much less now!
Undoubtedly then he who believed that he may eat all things is far more right in thought than he who makes a point of eating herbs. Still there was no ground in such prejudices or in their absence for making little of the weak and for judging the strong; for there was a double danger of fault – to him who knew his liberty, of despising the scrupulous; to him who was scrupulous, of judging censoriously the free. But such weakness is no more folly than such strength is laxity; even as divine love is always holy while always free. God has received the believer; and this is said emphatically of him who was judged licentious by the weak; as the brethren on the other hand are called to accept, but not to the determination of controversial questions, him that is weak in the faith. How much ignorance the Lord bears with in the most intelligent! “Who art thou that judgest another’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.” He beautifully adds (in answer doubtless to many a bitter anticipation of what would be the end of their liberty) “and he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand.” For the strong have no strength of their own, but grace will hold them up. Would we wish it otherwise, if it could be? Do we not delight that all is of Him?
In speaking next of a day regarded above a day the apostle enlarges. Giving up idols the Gentiles saw nothing in one day more than another. The Jew was naturally disposed to cling to old religions associations. But in this the Lord’s day is in no way included; for it rests on the highest sanction of the risen Lord (Joh 20:19 , Joh 20:20 ), confirmed by the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven (Act 20:7 ; Cor. 16: 2; Rev 1:10 ), and is no open matter as to which each is to be fully assured in his own mind. For a Christian not to regard the Lord’s day would be a direct dishonour put on His own special meeting with His disciples on that day, an open slight to that witness of grace and of the new creation (as the sabbath was of the old creation and of law). Only we must bear in mind that, while some lower the ground on which the Lord’s day is observed by reducing it to the mere practice or authority of the church, others unwittingly foist into Christianity what properly belongs to man and Israel. But the Christian is not a mere son of Adam or Israel. He is called out from both into an incomparably higher relationship. He is dead and risen with Christ; and to this change the Lord’s day is not the least striking testimony. On it the Lord proclaimed His brethren set in the same place with His God and Father as Himself risen from the dead. To confound the Lord’s day with the sabbath is to confound the gospel with the law, the Christian with the Jew, Christ with Adam. The very absence of a formal enactment in its case is admirably consistent with its nature as contrasted with that day which sanctified from the beginning, entered so prominently into God’s dealings with Israel as to be a sign between Him and them.
Were the Lord in view then, it would be seen that the eater eats to Him, for he gives God thanks, and the abstainer abstains to Him and gives God thanks. The truth is that we belong to Him, not to ourselves, either in life or in death. Living or dying, it is to Him: whether one or the other therefore, we are His and this grounded on His dying and living (i.e. in resurrection), the grand doctrine of this epistle and the basis of Christianity. Thus is He Lord of all, dead and living. Hence one must be aware of meddling with His rights. “Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou too despise thy brother?” We are forgetting our place and His, in thus turning either to the right or to the left.
“For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.” To this end is cited Isa 45:24 : every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us concerning himself shall give account to God.” How incongruous for one to judge, for another to despise! We shall each give an account, and this about ourselves and none else. To bring in Christ truly is the due settlement of every question. To Him all bow that believe, as all unbelievers must bow in that day when He shall judge the quick and dead. The believer comes not into judgment, but shall be manifested there and give account. When those who believe not give account, it is judgment for them, and hence necessarily condemnation; for as they confess no Saviour, so they can no longer hide their sins. What David deprecated by the Spirit (Psa 143:2 ), we are assured by our Lord Jesus, will not be our lot. (Joh 5:24 .) Nor does the believer need judgment to vindicate Jesus; the unbeliever does because he refuses His grace. Thus admirably perfect are the ways of God with both, in everyone and in everything glorifying Himself by Jesus Christ our Lord.
From the account we shall render to God each concerning himself, the apostle draws the conclusion, “Let us not then judge one another any more, but judge this rather, not to put a stumbling-block or an occasion of fall before one’s brother” (ver. 13): a principle as true for the strong as for the weak; for though the weak were the more prone to judge, the strong to despise, both are called to make this their determination, if they would not be an occasion of stumbling or offence, whether in act or thought.
Not but that the apostle had a judgment as to these questions. He was clear as to the Lord’s mind, but be would not insist upon this at first, being more careful that the affections should be right, than merely to lay down an accurate judgment; and in truth it is thus only that soundness in determining all questions can be arrived at. Wrong feelings falsify the judgment, as on the other hand, if the eye be single, the whole body shall be full of light. When Christ is the object, the path will be unmistakably clear. Hence we need One to guard our hearts, and One only can, and He has called us to liberty, but we need to watch that this liberty be never perverted to license for ourselves any more than to slight others. Love is the bond of perfectness. Here the apostle says, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing [is] unclean of itself; except to him that reckoneth anything to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean.” It is no question now of meats, in which they who walked were not profited. It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace. The Lord Jesus is also the truth, and has put everything in the light of God. But conscience must be heeded, and the strong must be careful not to weaken or wound another’s conscience, whatever be his own conviction. “For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according to love.” But love is the energy of the divine nature in which the Spirit guides, not in self-will. “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.” The Holy Spirit speaks according to the tendency of our conduct. Anything that would stumble another tends to destroy. What a misjudgment to insist upon liberty as to meat so as to nullify the value of Christ’s death as far as we can! Grace may, and no doubt does, deliver, but our misuse of liberty remains no less guilty in the sight of God. “Let not then your good be evil spoken of, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” This is a weighty practical truth, and we need, especially if we have knowledge, to guard against pressing anything beyond those who are but ill-instructed. It was not so that Christ walked and that God dealt with our own souls. And now that Christ has revealed God, it is of the deepest consequence that we insist only on what is grace and what makes for edification.
The reader will observe how “the kingdom of God” is used here, not so much dispensationally as morally. Indeed it is so where the phrase occurs in Matthew, who alone also uses the well-known formula “the kingdom of heaven.” Only the latter phrase invariably occurs in a dispensational sense, and means that state of things where the heavens rule now that Jesus is cast out from the earth; first, while He is hid in God; secondly, when He comes again in the clouds of heaven with power and glory. But the kingdom of God might be said to be already there, already come upon them, when He, by the Spirit of God, cast out demons. The kingdom of heaven, contrariwise, could not be said to have come till He went on high. Thus the kingdom of God might be used where the kingdom of heaven occurs but also as here where it could not be. The apostle insists that the kingdom of God cannot be lowered to that which perishes with the using; it is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, the inward spirit and practical power of the Christian. “For he that in this serves Christ [is] acceptable to God and approved of men.” It is walking in the Spirit, in short, the true guard against fulfilling any lust of the flesh. “Against righteousness and peace and joy there is no law.” “Let us therefore pursue the things of peace and the things of mutual edification.” God Himself is the God of peace, and the Lord is Himself the Lord of peace who gives us peace continually in every way. Knowledge puffs up, love alone builds up. And as He builds His church infallibly upon the rock, the confession of His own name, so we, by the godly use of His name, are called to build up one another. We can understand therefore how impressively the apostle again urges, “Do not for the sake of meat undo the work of God.” “All things indeed [are] clean.” This is freely allowed to the strong, but “it is evil to the man that eateth with stumbling.” This is the danger for the weak, and love would lead the strong to consider the weak, assuredly not to help the enemy against them. “[It is] right not to eat meat nor to drink wine [nor anything] in which thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is weak.” (Ver. 21.) There might be various degrees of danger; but the only thing that becomes the saint in this is to seek his brother’s good. “Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God: blessed he that judgeth not himself in what he alloweth.” To be strong in faith then is right: only it should be conjoined with the energy of love for those who are weak, guarding against all boast also in that which is received by grace from God. “But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [it is] not of faith; but whatever [is] not of faith is sin:” a maxim often strained in ancient and modern times to pronounce upon unbelievers and the worthlessness of every act in their lives. But this is clearly not in question here; rather is it a matter between Christians, some of whom saw their liberty, others being still in bondage. It is a great favour to enjoy the liberty of Christ in the smallest matters of every-day life; but he who has entered into this is so much the more bound to consider the believer who is still hampered with doubts as to this or that. To imitate liberty without believing its ground would be to endanger the work of God. Grace respects the conscience of him that doubts, and instead of trifling with scruples would rather seek to lead into the due application of Christ to the case by faith: without it all is vain or worse. “Whatever is not of faith is sin.”
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Rom 14:1-4
1Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:1
NASB”Now accept”
NKJV”Receive”
NRSV, TEV”Welcome”
NJB”Give a welcome”
This is a present middle imperative (cf. Rom 15:1). This is an ongoing command with emphasis on the subject. The pronoun “you” is in the Greek verb, but is implied in English and refers to “strong” Christians (cf. Rom 15:1). This implies two groups in the church at Rome. This may have related to (1) the tension between believing Jews and Gentiles (cf. Rom 15:7-21) or (2) differing personality types. This whole context is dealing with true, sincere believers; some strong, some weak in their faith. Faith is used here in the sense of the understanding of the gospel and its radically new and freeing implications.
NASB, NKJV”the one who is weak in faith”
NRSV, TEV”those who are weak in faith”
NJB”If a person’s faith is not strong enough”
This phrase is emphasized by being fronted (i.e., put first in the Greek text). Literally it is “weak in faith.” The present tense focuses on the fact that it is a lifestyle characteristic. This refers to a legalistic mindset. The over scrupulous Christian believer is described in this chapter in three ways:
1. prohibitions of food (cf. Rom 14:2; Rom 14:6; Rom 14:21)
2. emphasis on special days (cf. Rom 14:5-6)
3. prohibition of wine (cf. Rom 14:17; Rom 14:21)
This same type of person was mentioned in Rom 15:1 and 1Co 8:9-13; 1Co 9:22. Be careful not to categorize yourself too quickly as a strong or weak Christian. Often believers are weak in one area and strong in another.
Paul’s attitude toward these matters is very different in Gal 4:9-10 and Col 2:16-23. These texts reflect the attitudes and teachings of false teachers. In Romans these are sincere believers who have over-scrupulous consciences.
Many commentators think the “weak in faith” refers to Jewish believers (i.e., Judaizers) and their continuing emphasis on obedience to the Mosaic Law as understood in rabbinical traditions (i.e., Talmud). This surely fits #1 and #2 in paragraph one, but it does not fit #3. For this reason I think a certain personality type better fits the context. It may refer to Jewish or Gentile believers whose past traditions hold powerful sway!
SPECIAL TOPIC: WEAKNESS
NASB”but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions”
NKJV”but not to dispute over doubtful things”
NRSV”but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions”
TEV”but do not argue with them about their personal opinions”
NJB”without starting an argument”
Believers must fully accept other believers with whom they disagree without trying to change them! This demands freedom of conscience as the basis of fellowship, not an imposed uniformity. All believers are in process. They must give the Spirit time to work and mold each into maturity, but even in maturity, they will not all agree.
Rom 14:2 The diet referred to in this verse is for religious purposes, not health. This food problem arose from two possible sources (1) Jewish food laws (cf. Leviticus 11) or (2) meat sacrificed to pagan idols (cf. 1 Corinthians 8-10). Jesus clearly taught that food is not what defiles a person (cf. Mat 15:10-20; Mar 7:14-23). This truth is illustrated by Peter’s vision concerning Cornelius in Acts 10.
Rom 14:3 “The one who eats is not to regard with contempt” “Not to regard with contempt” is a present active imperative of ezouthene with the negative particle which usually means stop an act already in process.
“Contempt” is literally “to make light of,” “set at naught,” or “count as worthless” (cf. Rom 14:10; Luk 18:9; 1Co 6:4; 1Co 16:11; 2Co 10:10; Gal 4:14; 1Th 5:20). Believers must guard against a condescending self-righteousness. The strong in faith must not condemn the weak in faith.
“judge” This is a present active imperative with the negative particle which usually means stop an act already in process. The weak in faith must stop passing judgment on the actions of their brothers/sisters who disagree with them.
“for God has accepted him” This is an aorist middle indicative. This same term is translated “receive” in Rom 14:1. The basis for believers accepting each other is that God through Christ (Rom 15:7) has accepted them. In context Rom 14:3 is speaking directly to the over scrupulous, the Christian weak in faith.
Rom 14:4 “Who are you” This is emphatic in Greek, referring to the weak brother and sister.
“the servant” This is the term oikets, which is formed from the term oikos, which means “house,” therefore, this is a home slave or servant (cf. Luk 16:13; Act 10:7; Rom 14:4; 1Pe 2:18). It is used in this sense in the Septuagint (cf. Gen 9:25; Gen 27:37; Gen 44:16; Gen 44:33; Gen 50:18). It is not used as the predominate term for slave or servant in the NT, which is doulos; it could also denote home servants or slaves.
Paul’s argument here is that each believer is a slave/servant of Christ. He is their “lord” and He and He alone will direct them and hold them accountable for their actions and motives (cf. 2Co 5:10).
“To his own master he stands or falls” In context Paul is addressing the over scrupulous, but the statement obviously refers to both groups. Believers would do better getting the splinters out of their own eyes (cf. Mat 7:1-15).
“and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand” This was a wonderful promise (cf. Rom 5:1-2; Jud 1:24-25). It also involves each believer’s cooperation (cf. 1Co 15:1-2). See Special Topic: Stand at Rom 5:2.
There is a Greek manuscript variation at this point. The NKJV, following the uncial manuscripts D, F, G, 048 and 0150, as well as the Vulgate, has “God” (Theos), however, MSS P46, , A, B, C, P have “Lord” (kurios). The UBS4 rates “Lord” as certain (A).
faith. App-150.
receive. See Act 17:5.
but. Omit.
doubtful = criticizings. Greek. diakrisis. Only here; 1Co 12:10. Heb 5:14.
disputations = of (his) thoughts. i.e. without presuming to judge his thoughts.
Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13.] ON THE CONDUCT TO BE PURSUED TOWARDS WEAK AND SCRUPULOUS BRETHREN. There is some doubt who the 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 [Rom 14:14], and again the argument of ch. Rom 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 (Daniel 1), Tobit (Tob 1:10-11), [and in] some Jewish priests mentioned by Josephus, Life, 3, who having been sent prisoners to Rome, , . 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 1 Corinthians 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 Tholucks Comm. in loc., De Wettes Handbuch, and Stuarts Introd. to this chap. in his commentary.
Chapter 14
In the fourteenth chapter Paul deals now with another issue.
Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations ( Rom 14:1 ).
Don’t get into arguments with them, doubtful disputations, a person who is weak in the faith. And in this case, the person weak in the faith is the one who has very limited or narrow convictions.
For one man believes that he can eat anything: another, who is weak in the faith, is a vegetarian ( Rom 14:2 ).
There are some religious groups today that advocate being a vegetarian. There are some who believe that we should follow the dietary law of Moses, and thus, we shouldn’t eat lobster or shrimp or pork or the other forbidden unclean animals of the Old Testament. But there are others who say, “I like pork chops and I like lobster.” So those that are strong in the faith, eat meat. Those that are weak in the faith, eat vegetables.
Now should we get into big fights and arguments over this? Should I say to that vegetarian, “Oh, that is stupid. There is nothing wrong with eating meat, that is just plain dumb”? Should he point his finger and say, “Ah-ha, you can’t be a Christian because you are eating meat, man God is going to damn you to hell because you are eating meat”? It is sad that these kinds of things have brought this kind of division within the church. Because someone is convicted of something and they want to convict everybody else of the same thing, or make everybody yield to their convictions.
Paul says,
Let not him that eats [eats the meat] despise him that doesn’t eat meat; and let not him which eats not the meat judge him that eats: for God has received him ( Rom 14:3 ).
So in this matter our convictions are to be personal things. In these areas where the scripture does not give us precise definite teaching. There is a latitude. I am to have sympathetic understanding towards those whose convictions are narrower than mine. I am also to have a sympathetic understanding for those whose convictions are broader than mine. That is where I have my problems. I can sympathize with a person who is a vegetarian. That is all right. You don’t want to eat meat. That is fine. But some fellow who has convictions that are a little broader than mine and is doing some of the things that I don’t feel that I can do as a child of God, I have an awfully hard time not judging him. How can he do that? So that is where my problem lies, no problem dealing with those who have stronger convictions as long as they leave me alone. Don’t lay your trip on me. But when it is the other way around, how I would love to lay my trip on some people. Rebuke them for the things they are doing which they feel the liberty to do.
Now, naturally this is in scriptural limitations. There are things that the scripture tells us are wrong and with that there is no question. But in these areas where the scripture does not speak specifically, then we are to have this latitude in the receiving of each other.
For who are you to judge another man’s servant? ( Rom 14:4 )
Who are you to judge me? I am not your servant. Now, if I were your servant then you would have a right to judge me. But I am the Lord’s servant, therefore the Lord is my judge and He shall judge me. In the same token, you are not my servant, so I have no right to judge you. Again, you are the Lord’s servant so He will judge you.
before a man’s own master he either stands or falls. Yes, he will be held up: for God is able to make him stand ( Rom 14:4 ).
God has helped a lot of people to stand when I was sure they were going to fall. The way they were living, I knew they were going down the tube, but God held them up and He was able to make them stand. And to the surprise of a lot of people, He has helped me to stand.
On the issue of eating meat, but then it also goes over on the issue of the respect of the holy day.
One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind ( Rom 14:5 ).
Now, on what day are we to worship the Lord? On Saturday or on Sunday? If we worship on Saturday, are we then to follow the Jewish custom of the day begins at sundown and should we began worshipping God on Friday evening as the sun goes down and worship until Saturday evening sundown? Or is Sunday the day that we should worship the Lord? There are those who are very vehement in their feeling that Saturday is the only day to worship the Lord, and if you worship the Lord on Sunday that is paramount to taking the mark of the beast, for Sunday worship is the mark of the beast because Sunday was actually named after the sun god-Sunday. And thus, it was after the sun god. Thus, we ought to worship on Saturday, but they don’t tell you that is named after the god Saturn.
One man esteems one day above another. “Oh, this is the only day.” I am in the second category here myself. Another esteems every day alike–that is me. It don’t matter. I worship God on Saturday, or Monday, or Wednesday or whenever. Doesn’t matter to me what day I worship God; I worship the Lord everyday. As far as I am concerned, every day is the Lord’s day; I live my life for Him. So, I worship the Lord every morning. I worship the Lord all of the time, and every day is alike to me. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
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 eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not, and gives God thanks. For none of us live to himself, and no man dies 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 ( Rom 14:6-8 ).
And this, of course, is my feeling entirely. My life I live for the Lord, I am not living for myself. I won’t die for myself. But whether I live or die, I am the Lord’s.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living. But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God ( Rom 14:9-11 ).
Paul is really discouraging this practice that we have so often of judging each other within the body. To commit that judgement unto the Lord, because we are all going to appear before this judgement seat of Christ. He is the one that we must answer to. He is our Lord, the one that we serve, and thus, the one to whom we will ultimately answer.
For every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord. And thus, my relationship to Him is something that He will judge.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way ( Rom 14:12-13 ).
Let’s not judge each other, but as we are living together, let’s let love be the rule of life. Loving our neighbor as ourself, and in love. Let’s not do something that will cause a brother who is weaker to stumble. You may have liberty in a certain area, don’t flaunt that liberty before a weak brother, nor should you try to argue a person out of their convictions. If a person comes to me and says, “I believe it is a sin to eat salt.” Then it would be wrong for me to try and argue him into the folly of that kind of a position. Why, there is nothing wrong with salt. It is calcium chloride; there is nothing wrong with that. It might bother your heart a bit if you get too much, moderation. And I might try and talk him out of his conviction. I shouldn’t, because if he feels that it is a sin to eat salt, to him it is a sin, because that is the way he feels. I say, “Oh, try a little salt,” and I shake a little salt on his potato. Potatoes are so flat without salt. “Just try a little salt.” I am encouraging him into something that he has conviction against and he takes that potato and says, “Oh, that is good. My flesh can go for that.” But then every time he is using salt, because he has that conviction, and thinks, “Oh, I am a sinner.” And he is troubled now with his conscience and I have stumbled him. I have caused him to stumble. Therefore, you can come to me and tell me any kind of weird conviction you have and I will sympathize with you. I won’t try and talk you out of your convictions. I don’t think that that is my place. We are not to put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in our brother’s way.
For I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean ( Rom 14:14 ).
Now Paul is saying, basically, “Look, I can eat ham. I can eat pork chops. It is not unclean of itself. It is not going to damn me. I know that. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus there is nothing unclean of itself, but if a man esteems it to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Here is the matter of faith, and herein I feel that the church has done a great disservice. In preaching conviction, or convictions on people for some of the things that they do that are not things that are relative to the person’s eternal salvation. When I was growing up as a child, over and over and over again I heard it preached that you could not go to heaven if you smoked. That this was a damning sin and no person who smoked could expect to enter the kingdom of heaven. I heard that preached so much that I was convicted that it was true. Now, in a sense I am glad that I had that preaching, because it kept me from ever smoking a cigarette. I have never smoked one in my entire life, and I don’t feel I have missed a thing. I am happy that I don’t smoke. But not for spiritual reasons, but for physical reasons, and I happen to distaste smoking extremely.
I think the closest I have come to putting my fist in somebody’s face was over a cigar on an airplane. Our whole compartment stinking, because one stubborn character wanted to enjoy the pleasure of his cigar. I made it very unpleasurable for him. Not for spiritual reasons.
Now many of the young people who were my contemporary’s who went to church with me, and as they were growing up, as boys do, they began to experiment and pick up cigarette butts and light ’em and smoke them. I grew up in the days of the depression. You couldn’t go out and buy a pack of cigarettes. Nobody had that kind of money, and a lot of them started smoking. But, coincidentally, when they are starting to smoke, they also left their walk with the Lord Jesus Christ, because they believed that you could not be saved and smoke because that was what was preached at them. So the minute they started to smoke they left their fellowship with the Lord, because they felt that fellowship with the Lord was impossible as long as you were smoking. And so I grew up in that kind of background. Imagine my shock when I heard that Spurgeon smoked cigars. I can’t believe it. He is the guy that I admired the greatest preacher almost in the history of the church. G. Campbell Morgan had a pipe, oh no, how could you? Smoking is not a damning sin, unless you believe it is. But if you believe it is, then it can be, you see. If a man esteems a thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Now I definitely esteem it to be unclean, therefore I could not. If I smoked it would be a sign of my rebellion against God. But on the same token, I can accept the fact that Christian’s do smoke.
Now, I appreciate your graciousness for not smoking around me. I am sincere in that I hate smoke. I hate the smell of someone else’s smoke. And I appreciate that they don’t smoke around me, but I also respect their problem. I would not and do not condemn their smoking as long as they don’t do it around me, and then my condemnation is not spiritual, it is just purely physical. I am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
But if your brother is grieved over your liberty to eat meat, now you are not walking in love. Don’t destroy him with your liberty to eat meat, for whom Christ died ( Rom 14:15 ).
We are not to flaunt again our Christian liberty before the weaker brother. If it offends him, if it is hurting him in his walk to see my liberty, then I should not exercise my liberty before him. Why should I destroy one for whom Christ died just because I feel, “Well, I have a right to eat meat anytime I want”?
Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat or drink ( Rom 14:16-17 );
These are not the true issues of the kingdom. People like to make them the issues. They are not. The kingdom of God is:
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that in these things serves Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things whereby we may build up one another. And for your liberty in eating meat do not destroy the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense ( Rom 14:17-20 ).
It is evil if I would exercise my liberty in such a way as to offend a weaker brother in Christ.
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak ( Rom 14:21 ).
Thus, I live in the law of love a more stringent life than my own convictions. Because I would not want to do something that would stumble someone else. Though I feel a personal liberty that I could do those things without hindering my fellowship with Jesus Christ, I will not do them for love and for love’s sake. So that I would not be a stumbling block to someone else.
Somewhere and somehow I guess a rumor got out that I had a drinking problem. But I actually quit drinking Coke about five years ago, and that is the worse thing I ever drink. That doesn’t sound right does it? But, again, I grew up under the law. And, again, I am thankful, because I have never tasted an alcoholic drink in my life, so that is the kind of problem I have with it. Nor would I, because I don’t need it for one, and two, I realize . . . and I do realize that if I would exercise liberty in Christ, and say, “Oh, I can have a champagne or I can have wine or something with my meal,” that there may be weaker persons seeing us and feel embolden to do so and be destroyed. Now, we do go to the airport for lunch every once in a while and it is a champagne brunch on Sunday. They do give us sparkling apple cider or grape juice. It could be that someone saw me drinking my sparkling apple cider and thought that I was drinking, but such is not the case. They would have noticed my little grandchildren beside me were drinking the same stuff.
Do you have faith? then have it to yourself before God ( Rom 14:22 ).
Let it be a personal thing, don’t do it openly where it can hinder someone else.
For happy is he that condemns not himself in the thing which he allows ( Rom 14:22 ).
It is great to have, really, that kind of faith in God that nothing really comes between you and God. As they sang tonight, “Happy is the one whose sins, freely are forgiven, whose innocents has been declared by the Lord of heaven.” It is great, happy is the man whose heart does not condemn him the things that he allows.
But he that doubts is damned if he eats, because he is not eating of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin [to that individual] ( Rom 14:23 ).
If you can’t do it in faith, if you are being condemned as you do it, then to you it is sin. For him that esteems something to be unclean, to him it is unclean. So my Christian liberties, how am I to exercise it before God in private. Not to stumble someone else by those liberties that I may feel. Again, the whole ideal goes back to chapter 13, “walk in love, for he who loves has fulfilled the whole law.” Loving one another, walking in a loving relationship with each another, and because of my love for you and my love for Jesus Christ, not doing anything that I know could be offensive to or might stumble you in your walk. Because of love, living a life more stringent than my own personal convictions so that I would not stumble a weaker brother. God help us to live and to walk in love, even as we are commanded.
Father, we thank You tonight for Your Word and guide unto life. Help us, Lord, to walk in the path in which it leads us. Following after righteousness, and walking in love. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen. “
Rom 14:1. ) The participle is milder than the adjective , weak.-, in faith) Even still the apostle refers all things to faith.-, 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.]- , 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, , are driven into [to entertain] doubts, , so that he cannot in his own feeling on the particular point, be borne along with full satisfaction, [be fully persuaded, Rom 14:5], the word is the antithesis to the word . He calls them doubts in the thoughts, for those in doubt think more than they speak.
Rom 14:1
Rom 14:1
But him that is weak in faith receive ye,-A mans faith is weak when it is troubled over untaught and doubtful questions. He whose faith is not fixed and firm is to be accepted with the hope that his faith will grow strong and steadfast by using.
yet not for decision of scruples.-It was the duty of Christians to receive these persons of weak and morbid consciences, but not to the discussion of doubtful questions. It is sinful to disturb the peace and harmony of Christians over these untaught questions. The continual discussion of questions of this character will destroy the harmony and zeal of any congregation, and Paul instructs the church not to permit it. The character of these questions is given in the following verses. They are questions concerning which God has given no teaching and which have no bearing on the character of man.
The apostle now turned to discussion of some of the difficulties which may arise in the Christian Church. Dealing with the question of the animals sacrificed to idols he laid down a supreme principle that it would be well for us ever to remember. Every man stands or falls to his own Master. The same principle applies to the observance of days. The court of appeal is the mind loyal to Christ.
The deduction from the discussion has to do with our attitude toward each other. When I pass judgment on my brother, I am usurping the very throne of God. He alone knows all the facts, and alone is able to pass a judgment, and this right He reserves to Himself. The sphere of judgment open to us is not our brother’s life and action, but our own. The test by which we are to judge is the welfare of our brother.
This judging of one’s self by the standard of the well-being of another now leads the apostle to show what is the highest and noblest exercise of freedom, namely, the abandonment of a right, if need be, for the good of a weak brother.
The apostle summed up the whole question by appealing for such conduct as will make for peace and mutual edification. This, however, by no means issues in anything approaching looseness of moral conduct, for the apostle lays down in this connection what is perhaps the most searching and severe test of conduct in the New Testament, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” That is to say two things: first, that a person devoted to the Lordship of Jesus sins when acting from any motive other than confidence in, and obedience to, Him. How many individual questions of conduct, on which we are anxious to obtain outside opinion, would be settled if this principle were always remembered and obeyed.
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 Gods work in a brothers 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 Gods 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 Marcions use of the rest of the chapter we know nothing. On chaps. 15, 16, see Introduction, 9.
1. : 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.
, receive into full Christian intercourse and fellowship. The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping man: Psa_26 (27) 10 , : so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. Rom. 49:6 . But (2) it is also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companionship: 2 Macc. 8:1 . 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.
, 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. , from 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. 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 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.
2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both sides.
. With the variation in construction cf. 1Co 12:8-10; Mar 4:4; Luk 8:5. The second is not for , but is to be taken with .
, hath faith to eat all things; his faith, i.e. his grasp and hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are.
, abstains from all flesh meat and eats only vegetables. Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over-scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399).
3. . 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.
. 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.
4. ; St. Paul is still rebuking the weak. The man whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of God; to God therefore he is responsible.
. Dat. of reference: cf. vv. 5-8. It is to his own master that he is responsible. He it is to whom he must show whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. (11:11, 11:22) of moral failure; (1Co 16:13; Php 1:27) of moral stability. In 1Co 10:12 the two are contrasted, .
: cf. Mat 12:25. In spite of your censoriousness he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him upright. The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He has called.
For ( A B C D F G), which is an unusual word, later MSS. substituted (P, Bas. Chrys.), or (T R with L and later MSS.). For ( A B C P, Sah. Boh., &c.) was introduced from ver. 3 (D E F G L, &c., Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.), perhaps because of the confusion with above.
5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulousness, -the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colossians for the same reason. Gal 4:10, Gal 4:11 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain. Col 2:16, Col 2:17 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christs. St. Paul does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the question, as illustrating (hence ) the general discussion of the chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured in his own conscience that he is doing right.
Various commentators have discussed the relation of these directions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Iovinian. ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter ieiunia et saturitatem aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loquitur, qui in Christum credentes, adhuc iudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indifferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupulousness in any form. So these same principles would apply equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints days or Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline.
Tisch. (Exo_8) reads here with A C P, Vulg. Boh. (which he quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The is omitted by c B D E F G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. T. R. RV. and inserted between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly Western in character.
, estimates, approves of: Plat. Phil. p. 57 E is quoted. , passing by and so in preference to.
. The difference between the Christian and the Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of the Spirit; he must do what his , his highest intellectual faculty, tells him to be right. On the word see on 4:21 and cf. Clem. Rom. 42 .
6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account to Him.
: esteem, estimate, observe. , emphatic, is Dat. of reference as above, ver. 4.
: see ver. 3. Both alike make their meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in to the Christian ?
After the T. R. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt.) add , a gloss which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of before (TR. with some minuscules). That the words were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the superfluous (Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). Various instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits . : 66 omits to ; minusc. 3 omit to .
7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general rule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give account of our lives to Him and not to one another.
7. . In life and in death we are not isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that concerns us alone.
8. : but it is to Christ, as men living in Christs sight and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christs sight we shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we live or die we are the Lords. Wetstein compares Pirq Aboth, iv. 32 Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.
It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. 8. There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him.
9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape.
is explained by .
must refer to Christs death and resurrection. cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately varied from the order of the previous verses; (2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was a period of humiliation (Rom 8:34; 2Co 4:10, 2Co 4:11); (3) because of the tense; the aorist could be used of a single definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be used of the continuous life on earth.
. The inversion of the usual order is owing to the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, . . For the of Christ ( ) see Php 2:9, Php 2:11.
For the T. R. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads , the older and most difficult reading ( A B C, Boh., Arm. Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by . F G Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers; by . , T. R. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by . . , LP. &c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by . . . DE. Iren.
10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or censorious exclusiveness between man and man.
refers to , to .
. Cf. Act 27:24 . For , in the sense of a judges official seat, see Mat 27:19; Job 19:13, &c. God is here mentioned as Judge because (see 2:16) He judges the world through Christ. In 2Co 5:10 the expression is . It is quite impossible to follow Liddon in taking of Christ in his Divine nature; that would be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how easily St. Paul passes from to . The Father and the Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son.
must be accepted as against on decisive authority. The latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2Co 5:10.
11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of Gods judgement by quoting Isa 45:23 (freely acc. to the LXX). In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete fulfilment at the final judgement.
, shall give praise to God, according to the usual LXX meaning; cf. 15:9, which is quoted from Ps. 17:50 (18:50).
, is substituted for , cf. Num 14:28 &c.; for … the LXX reads . . .
12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of us has to give account. If be read (see below), it may again be noted how easily St. Paul passes from to (see on ver. 10 and cf. 14:3 with 15:7).
There are several minor variations of text. is omitted by B D F G P and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read itaque. For of the T. R. WH. read with B D F G Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit (but Cyprian dabit). at the end of the sentence is omitted by B F G Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group which is almost entirely Western in character.
13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely round and treats the question from the other side. All this is true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences of others.
marks the transition to the second question by summing up the first.
: for the play on words cf. 12:3, 14, 13:1. Do not therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i. e. determine this as your course of conduct: cf. 2Co 2:1.
. is suggested by the literal meaning of , a snare or stumbling-block which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word and the whole thought of the passage from our Lord`s words reported in Mat 18:6 f. See also his treatment of the same question in 1Co 8:9 f.
should perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As Weiss points out, the fact that is omitted in all authorities which omit . proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. would come in from 1Co 8:9 and ver. 20 below.
14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated.
. The natural meaning of these words is the same as that of . (9:1); to St. Paul the indifference of all meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly to the words of Christ (Mar 7:15; Mat 15:11); when doing so his formula is .
. The technical term to express those customs and habits, which, although common to the world, were forbidden to the pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII, i. 1 : 1 Macc. 1:47, 62; Act 10:14 .
, in itself, in its own nature.
That is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of B C also of (Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, 7) supported by many later MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. In Domine ergo Iesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and Chrys. and (2) by the contrast with . , through Christ (so Theodrt. and later comm.) is a correction.
… Only if a man supposes that the breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he is led to commit sin; for example, if at the common Eucharistic meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it would clearly be wrong.
15. . The (which has conclusive manuscript authority) implies a suppressed link in the argument. You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if, &c.
. His conscience is injured and wounded, for he willfully and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger of perishing ().
. Cf. 1Co 8:10, 1Co 8:11. Christ died to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give up some favourite food?
16. … Let not that good of yours, i. e. your consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. 1Co 10:29 ), become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the reputation of the community with the outside world. The above interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it (Mey-W. Lips. Liddon).
17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause a breach in the harmony of the Church; for eating and drinking are not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit.
. An echo of our Lords teaching. The phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life; so especially 1Co 6:9, 1Co 6:10, where it is laid down that certain classes shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already exhibited in this world (cf. 1Co 4:20). The term is, of course, derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish conceptions of an actual earthly kingdom; how far exactly such conceptions have been spiritualized in St. Paul it may be difficult to say.
. If, as is probable, the weak brethren are conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point in this expression. If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking as to make a point of indulging in what you will at all costs, you are in danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom to be one of material plenty (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3).
These words are often quoted as condemning any form of scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not St. Pauls idea. He means that eating and drinking are in themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely insignificant in comparison with righteousness and peace and joy.
… This passage describes mans life in the kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. therefore is not used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, but means righteousness or just dealing; is the state of peace with one another which should characterize Christians; is the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community; cf. Act 2:46 .
18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the principle implied by these virtues ( , not ), is Christs servant, i. e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain the approval of men.
. The contrast to of ver. 16. Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which will recommend a man to his fellow-men. , able to stand the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2Ti 2:15).
19. : cf. 1Co 14:26 , 1Th 5:11 .
( A B F G L P ) is really more expressive than the somewhat obvious correction (C D E, Latt.). D E F G add after .
20. keeps up the metaphor suggested by . Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community which God has founded in Christ. Cf. 1Co 3:9 . , . The words and both point to the community rather than the individual Christian.
: cf. 1Co 10:23 , . , .
: the subject to this must be supplied from . It is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries)? or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W.. and others)? In the former case (on the cf. 2:27, 4:11) means so as to cause offence, in the latter so as to take offence (Tyndale, who eateth with hurt of his conscience). Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1).
21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure others is a noble act.
: cf. 1Co 7:1 and for the thought 1Co 8:13 , , , . We know the situation implied in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as instances. I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to offend my brother.
The T. R. adds after the gloss with B Western and Syrian authorities (ac B D E F G L P, &c., Vulg. Sah., Bas. Chrys.). They are omitted by A C , Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B; cf. 11:6.
22. . Your faith is sufficient to see that all these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself.
The preponderance of authorities ( A B C, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.) compels us to read . The omission of (D E F G L P , Vulg. codd. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement.
… Blessed (see on 4:6, 7) because of his strong faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him that he may do without any doubt or misgiving , to judge censoriously so as to condemn, cf. 2:1, 3, 27. (1:28, 2:18) to approve of after testing and examining.
23. : see on 4:20. If a man doubts or hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he would have no doubt or hesitation.
, . is subjective, the strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. Weakly to comply with other persons customs without being convinced of their indifference is itself sin. This maxim (1) is not concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.
This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra Iulianum iv, one passage of which ( 32) may be quoted: Ex quo colligitur, etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt; quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has been used to support the two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chrysostom says, When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything. 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. So Aquinas, Summa i. 2,qu. xix, art. v. omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam.
On the doxology (16:25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see the Introduction, 8.
Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa.
Oltr. Oltramare.
Va. Vaughan.
Lips. Lipsius.
Gif. Gifford.
Bas. Basil.
Chrys. Chrysostom.
Sah. Sahidic.
Boh. Bohairic.
&c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows:
Vulg. Vulgate.
Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Cod. Sinaiticus
A Cod. Alexandrinus
C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus
P Cod. Porphyrianus
Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster.
Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector c
B Cod. Vaticanus
D Cod. Claromontanus
E Cod. Sangermanensis
F Cod. Augiensis
G Cod. Boernerianus
Syrr. Syriac.
T. R. Textus Receptus.
RV. Revised Version.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
L Cod. Angelicus
Arm. Armenian.
Aeth. Ethiopic.
Orig. Origen.
Cypr. Cyprian.
Aug. Augustine.
Pesh. Peshitto.
Jos. Josephus.
Cod. Patiriensis
Latt. Latin.
Cod. Sinaiticus, corrector a
codd. codices.
Consideration toward Brethren
Rom 14:1-12
The weak conscience needs further instruction. It is anemic and requires the hilltop, with its further view and bracing air; but in the meantime its owner must be guided by its promptings. A man must not take a certain course merely because others do so, unless he can justify their bolder faith and larger freedom. By thought and prayer and the study of Gods Word, conscience becomes educated and strengthened, and ceases to worry as to whether we should be vegetarian or not; whether we should observe saints days, or adopt a specific method of observing the Sabbath. Some people are constantly wondering and questioning about such things, as though their eternal salvation depended on minute observances.
Such would have found but scant comfort from the Apostle. He would have said, Do the best you know, and when you have once adopted a certain method of life, follow it humbly, until some wider view is opened before you by the Spirit of God. The main principle for us all is to live and die to please our Lord. He is our Master, and it will be for Him to allot our rewards. In the meantime let us not judge one another, but live in love, leaving each to work out the plan of his own life as his Master directs.
In chapter 14 and the first seven verses of chapter 15 the Holy Spirit emphasizes the believers responsibilities toward his weaker brethren. He is to walk charitably toward those who have less light than himself.
The weak in faith, that is, those whose uninstructed consciences cause them to be in trouble as to things indifferent, are to be received and owned as in this full Christian position and not to be judged for their questionings or doubtful thoughts. The principle is a most far-reaching one, and indicates the breadth of Christian charity that should prevail over the spirit of legality into which it is so easy to fall. Light is not the ground of reception to Christian privileges, but life. All those who are children of God are to be recognized as fellow-members of the Body, and unless living in evident wickedness, to be accorded their blood-bought place in the Christian company. Wickedness and weakness are not to be confounded. The wicked person is to be put away (see 1Cornthians Chapter), but the weak brother is to be received and protected.
Of course it is not reception into fellowship that is here in view. The one who was weak in faith was already inside. He must not be looked upon coldly and judged for his doubtful thoughts (see margin), but received cordially, and his weak conscience carefully considered. It might be one who is still under law as to things clean and unclean or one who has difficulty regarding holy days. In the former case the brother who is strong in the liberty that is in Christ believes he may, as a Christian, eat all things, raising no questions as to their ceremonial cleanness. The weak brother is so afraid of defilement he subsists on a vegetable diet rather than possibly partake of what has been offered to idols or is not Kosher – that is, clean according to Levitical law.
The one who is strong must not look with contempt upon his over-scrupulous brother. On the other hand, the weak one is forbidden to accuse the stronger of insincerity or inconsistency.
Or if it be a question of days and one brother with a legal conscience possibly still holds to the sanctity of the Jewish Sabbath, while another sees all days as now alike and to be devoted to the glory of God, each must seek to act as before Him and be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Who has given one servant to regulate another? Both are accountable to one Master, and He recognizes integrity of heart, and will uphold His own. Where there is sincerity and it is the glory of the Lord that each has in view, both must endeavor to act as in His presence. There can be no question but that the principle here enunciated if firmly held would make for fuller fellowship among saints and save from many heart-burnings.
We do not live for ourselves. Whether we will or no we are constantly affecting others for good or ill. Let us then recognize our individual responsibility to the Lord, whose we are and whom we are to serve, whether in life or in death. For to this end Christ both died and rose that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. The words, and revived, are a needless interpolation omitted from all critical versions.
At the judgment-seat of God (according to the best reading), where Christ Himself is the Arbiter, all will come out, and He will show what was in accord with His mind. Till then we can afford to wait, realizing that we must all give account of ourselves to Him. In view of this, Let us not judge one another any more, but let there be individual self-judgment, each one striving so to walk as not to put any occasion to fall in a weak brothers way.
Even where one is clear that his own behavior is consistent with Christian liberty, let him not flaunt that liberty before the weak lest he destroy one for whom Christ died. See also 1Co 8:11. It is of course the ruin of his testimony that is in view. Emboldened by the example of the strong one he may venture to go beyond the dictates of conscience and so bring himself under a sense of condemnation, or he may become discouraged, thinking others inconsistent, and so drift from the Christian company.
After all, questions of meats and drinks are but of minor importance. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink-i.e., has not to do with temporalities as have all merely human kingdoms-but it is spiritual in character and has to do with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Where one is exercised as to these things (even though mistaken as to others) he serves Christ, and is acceptable to God and approved of men.
Every right-thinking person appreciates sincerity. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
It is far better to abstain from ought that would trouble the conscience of a weak brother than to turn him aside by insisting on liberty, and so be responsible for his failure and the break-down of his discipleship.
If one has faith that he can safely do what another condemns, let him have it to himself before God and not flaunt it flagrantly before the weak. But let him be sure he is not self-condemned while he professes to be clear; for he who persists in a certain course concerning which he is not really at ease before God does not truly act in faith, and so is condemned (not damned of course-for this word properly refers to eternal judgment), because whatsoever is not of faith is sin. That is to say, if I act contrary to what I believe to be right, even though there be nothing morally wrong in my behavior, I am really sinning against conscience and thus against God.
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.
CHAPTER 14
1. Strong and Weak Brethren are the Lords 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 Gods 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 Lords servant and not ours. The rebuke is who art thou that thou judgest anothers 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 Lords. 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 brothers 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).
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.
weak: Rom 14:21, Rom 4:19, Rom 15:1, Rom 15:7, Job 4:3, Isa 35:3, Isa 35:4, Isa 40:11, Isa 42:3, Eze 34:4, Eze 34:16, Zec 11:16, Mat 12:20, Mat 14:31, Mat 18:6, Mat 18:10, Luk 17:2, 1Co 3:1, 1Co 3:2, 1Co 8:7-13, 1Co 9:22
receive: Rom 15:7, Mat 10:40-42, Mat 18:5, Joh 13:20, Phi 2:29, 2Jo 1:10, 3Jo 1:8-10
doubtful disputations: or, judge his doubtful thoughts, Rom 14:2-5
Reciprocal: Lev 11:22 – General Lev 13:6 – pronounce 2Ki 5:17 – of earth Mat 5:9 – are Joh 21:15 – lambs Act 21:21 – that thou 1Co 8:9 – weak Gal 6:1 – overtaken Phi 2:14 – disputings 1Th 5:14 – comfort 1Ti 6:4 – words 2Ti 2:14 – that Heb 5:14 – to discern
CHAPTER 14 is entirely occupied with a matter that gave rise to very difficult problems in the early years of the churchs history. The Jewish converts carried with them pretty naturally their views and feelings about matters of eating and drinking, about the observance of days, and customs, and the like. Their thoughts were partly based on the law of God, and partly on the tradition of the elders, but at any rate their feelings were very strong. The Gentile converts had no such feelings, and were inclined to regard it all as so much obstinate stupidity on the part of their Jewish brethren. Here was a cause of endless friction. The whole question is raised here, and settled with that admirable simplicity which characterizes Divine wisdom.
We must not let our interest flag at this point. We must not say-These questions do not exist today. The whole thing is of purely academic interest. We can dismiss it.
Not so. It is rather of very live and pressing importance. Though the exact questions that agitated and divided first-century Christians may have largely faded away, there are many others of an analogous nature taking their place, and much distress and harm is caused today when the instructions of this chapter are not observed. We will not go through the chapter verse by verse, but summarize it, by observing that there are in it three principles established, and three exhortations given; one connected with each principle.
The first is stated in verse Rom 14:4. We may call it the principle of Christian liberty. In these matters that have to do with personal behaviour and conscientious service to the Lord, we are set free from the lordship of our brethren, by being set under the over-lordship of Christ. We may be right or wrong in our judgment, but the thing of prime importance is that we each, with a single eye for our Master, do what we believe to be pleasing to Him. The exhortation which hinges upon this is, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
God intends us to be exercised as to such matters, each for himself. Were there a definite command in Scripture there need not be the exercise. Then, simple obedience is the only course pleasing to God. But these other matters, how many they are. Should I go here or there? Should I partake of this or that? May I enjoy this pleasurable recreation or not? Ought we to carry out this service or this ordinance in this way or that way? What acrimonious and harmful controversies have raged around such questions. And the answer is so simple. Let the wrangling cease! Hands off each other! Each man to his own knees, in the presence of his own Master, that he may get, as far as in him lies, the knowledge of his Masters will.
Having settled in the Masters presence what we believe He would have us do, let us do it in the simplicity of faith. Only it must tee faith, and not self-will. And we must not go beyond or lag behind our faith. To do this is to bring condemnation (not, damnation) into our consciences, as the last two verses of the chapter tell us.
Some will say, But this principle of liberty is sure to be abused. No doubt: but note how it is guarded by what we have in verses Rom 14:10-12. Here is enforced the principle of individual responsibility to God. I may not lord it over my brother, and if I attempt to do so he need not pay much attention to me; but let him remember the judgment seat of Christ. Christ has died and risen again that He might establish His rights in both spheres, that of the dead and that of the living. All our movements then, dying or living, must be in relation to Him. But in giving account to Him we shall be rendering account to GOD. This is a tremendous fact, calculated to move every one of our hearts, and make us very careful in what we do or allow.
The exhortation in connection with this confronts us in verse Rom 14:13. Let us no longer therefore judge one another, this is the negative side of it; and the positive is, but judge ye this rather, not to put a stumbling-block or a fall-trap before his brother (N. Trans.). We are to keep our eyes on the judgment seat for ourselves, and as regards our brethren see to it that we do not provoke them to a fall. Lower down in the chapter this is worked out in a very practical way. Verses Rom 14:15, Rom 14:20, Rom 14:21, for instance. Strong language is used. The Apostle speaks of destroying him… for whom Christ died. He says, destroy not the work of God.
Gods sovereign work cannot be annihilated, and the true sheep of Christ shall never perish; but both one and the other can be wrecked in a practical way. The case supposed here is that of some Gentile Christian, spiritually robust and unfettered by prejudice, flaunting his liberty before the eyes of his Jewish brother, who, though still strong as to the law, is weak in the faith of the Gospel. Thereby the weak brother is tempted into doing things with which afterwards he bitterly reproaches himself, settling down perhaps under a spiritual cloud until his dying day.
You and I may be working mischief like that, if we do not take care. So let us look out, and keep our eyes on the judgment seat.
In saying this we have practically anticipated the third great principle of the chapter. It is that of Christian brotherhood, or fraternity, we may say. Verse Rom 14:15 clearly states it. Thy brother… for whom Christ died. If Christ died for that weak brother of ours-troublesome and awkward fellow, though he may sometimes be-then he must be very dear to Christ. Shall he not be dear to us? And let us not forget that you and I may sometimes prove ourselves troublesome and awkward fellows in his eyes. Then may God give him grace, as formerly to us, to view us as those for whom Christ died.
Based upon this principle comes the exhortation of verse 19. Being brethren we are to pursue the things that make for peace and edification. We are to be keen to build up, not to knock down. We are to aim at peace not at strife. If tempted to transgress, let us ask ourselves Moses question, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do you wrong one to another?
It is possible for us to get things so astray in our thoughts that when we see a feeble brother we say, See, here is a weak one! Let us give him a push and see if he will fall over. He does fall, poor fellow. Then we say, We always thought he would. Now you see he is no good, and we are well rid of him. And when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ who died for him, what is going to be said to us? If we could hear it now, it would set our ears a-tingling. There is loss to be received as well as reward at that judgment seat!
Once more let us emphasize the fact that all these instructions relate to matters of individual life and conduct and service, and must not be stretched to include vital truth of God and to condone indifference as to that. Verse Rom 14:17 lifts our thoughts onto a higher plane. God has established His authority and rule in the hearts of His saints, and this is not concerned with details as to eating and drinking, but with the features of a moral and spiritual order which are well pleasing to Him. That we should be living lives of practical righteousness and peace, and of holy joy, in the power of the Spirit of God, is to His glory. We are brought under His sway, and His Spirit is given to us, to this end.
As brought into that kingdom the principles that are to prevail amongst us are, Liberty, Responsibility, Fraternity-as we have seen-the responsibility being God-ward. At the close of the seventeenth century the great cry in France became, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity-the equality being manward. What tragedies followed! Very soon a situation developed which was the total negation of all three words! Let us see to it that we observe our three words, which work in the direction of righteousness, peace and joy.
4:1
Rom 14:1. This chapter deals with two subjects an which the Lord has made no legislation as to their being right or wrong. Him that is weak in the faith does not pertain to matters that are necessary to salvation, for on that subject all Christians are commanded to be “strong in the Lord” (Eph 6:10). But it means one who is weak as to whether he should participate in the things others were doing. Receive ye denotes that we should accept him as a brother in Christ, but not with the idea of judging or condemning him on these unlegislated things on which he has some doubts.
Rom 14:1. Him that is weak in the faith. (See note above.) The phrase might be rendered weak in faith, or even, in his faith, since faith in Christ is meant, not Christian doctrine, or, moral conviction, or, knowledge. The latter ideas are implied; for in the cases referred to the faith did not have its practical result in moral discernment and conviction in regard to what properly belonged to a life of faith.
Receive ye; do not reject or discourage him, but count him one of your number, in fraternal fellowship. This exhortation suggests that the weak brethren were in a small minority.
But not to doubtful disputations, lit., unto judgings of thoughts. This clause is addressed to the stronger brethren, who formed the great majority of the church. While they receive the weak brother, it should not be in such a way as to produce this result, that his thoughts (in this case the scruples named in Rom 14:2; Rom 14:5. etc.) are criticised and judged. To refer it to both parties is opposed by the form of the sentence. The word thoughts here refers to doubts, but does not itself mean this. Godet explains: debates consisting in vain reasonings. But the word judgings means decisions, or, discriminations of judgment, while thoughts, though usually having a had sense in the New Testament, never means vain reasonings. Langes view: Not to the judicial decision of motives, though a proper inference, is lexically indefensible.
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.
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.
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 apostles 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 apostles principles, would have been chargeable on the imposers. Doddridge.
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 (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.
[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.]
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 Christs 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 Lords. The weak then regard the day for the Lords 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 Lords. Therefore also I should seek to please my brother for his edification-he is the Lords; 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 mans 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.
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.
Rom 14:1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye. The apostolic churches were composed of jews and gentiles. Most of the jews were zealous of the law, and observed the legal distinctions of meats, clean and unclean, while the gentiles would eat whatever was sold in the shambles. Many of the heathen also had conscientious scruples. We gather from Ovids Fastorum, that the Greeks and Romans had feasts and customs without number; and some of those after their conversion would not eat of meats which had been offered to an idol. The apostle therefore cautions them against all contests and disputes, which should be overcome by the feelings of charity. But if a man would defend his scruples so tenaciously as to divide the church, they had better not receive him as a member.
Rom 14:6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord. Such as the sabbath, the new moon, and the day of atonement. As all these variations might exist without sin, the remedy against disputation was brotherly love, following the example of Christ, who lived and died for us.
Rom 14:17. For the kingdom of God, the reign of grace in the heart, is not meat and drink, but righteousness, the love of God and all mankind, and the peace of God that passes all understanding. All this is accompanied with joy in the Holy Ghost, that God is our Father, that sin is all forgiven, and the earnest of heaven opened in the heart. Proof indisputable that St. Paul understood religion as Moses did, when he resolved the whole law into the love of God and man.
Rom 14:23. He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he does it against his conscience, and against his faith. This must be the true sense, as in the preseding verse. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth.
Rom 14:1-12. A Lesson in Toleration.A special homily for Rome (Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13) follows the comprehensive exhortation of chs. 12f. Some ascetic circle in the Roman Church (p. 650), led perhaps by Jews of Essenic tenets (see Lightfoots Colossians, on the Essenes), practised vegetarianism; others made much of sacred days. On such matters Christians should not judge or quarrel with each other.
Rom 14:1-4. The man who eats herbs only, has a feeble apprehension of the Gospel, imagining his salvation affected by his diet; see Rom 14:17; cf. Mar 7:14-23 Still he has faith and must be received as a brother, for God has received him; but not received so as to raise questions of doubtful debate. The atmosphere of controversy is injurious to the Christian society. The man free from scruples despises the stickler, who retorts by judging the libertarian. Both are servants of Gods household, who stand or fall to their own Masteryes, and will stand, though they try to pull each other down, for mighty is the Lord, the upholder.
Rom 14:5. So in regard to sabbath and festa observance: conscientious conviction is the essential thing (p. 647).
Rom 14:6. He who minds the day (cf. Rom 8:5-7, Rom 12:16, for the verb), minds it with a view to serve the Lord; and he who eats flesh, eats it to the Lord, for he gives God thanks (cf. 1Ti 4:4 f.), while the vegetarian does the same over his spare dietthey are agreed in the vital point (see 1Co 10:30 f.).
Rom 14:7-11 lifts the reader into the realm of Christs lordship, won by His death and resurrection, which covers life and death alike; in both estates, the fact that we are the Lords determines everything. Now, to judge or to despise your brother, with whom you must stand side by side at Gods tribunala certainty expressed in solemn words of Scripture (Rom 14:11)is an encroachment on Christs sovereignty. Paul puts the dead before the living (Rom 14:9), the former being nearer to Christ (see 2Co 5:8, Php 1:23, 1Th 4:14-16).
Rom 14:12. Instead of meddling with other mens responsibilities, let each see to himself in view of the final account.
Personal Conscience Toward God
In Rom 12:1-21 we have seen instruction in many details of moral conduct. In such cases conscience has no liberty to take any stand but that of truth and honor. Just so in Rom 13:1-14, where questions of government are involved. For conscience sake I must be subject. If conscience requires my disobedience to authorities in order that I might obey God, it is a different matter; but I cannot plead that conscience allows me to disobey authorities simply because I see no evil in disobeying. I have no right to have so careless a conscience. Conscience is not to be the judge in such cases, but is rather to be subject to the Word of God.
Rom 14:1-23 however, shows fully the need of exercise of every individual’s conscience before the Lord, and for the consideration of the consciences of others. Various indeed are the conditions of conscience in various saints of God – much no doubt depending upon understanding and growth in grace. If one were to claim that conscience allows him to do what he knows the Word of God condemns, that is not conscience at all, but gross self-will. It is of utmost importance that we have consciences exercised and formed by the Word of God.
But there are many matters in the affairs of life that have in themselves no serious moral or spiritual significance. Examples of these are the eating of meat, drinking of wine, or abstaining from it, and the observance of days. Doubtless this was most pronounced at the beginning of Christianity – Jewish believers particularly being loathe to forget their special religious days and formal ordinances. Yet there is doubtless much that answers to these things in our own day – consciences somewhat in bondage to conceptions of early training, and not easily laying such things aside even after conversion.
If a soul were thus weak in the faith, this is not the slightest reason for disputing with him. Let us rather discern where a man’s heart is as regards the Person of the Lord: the other is of no real consequence. By experience and learning more of the blessed Word of God, much that is unnecessary will drop off. The subject in Romans is not reception to the breaking of bread, though the truth here does without doubt have bearing upon this. “Receiving” is showing fellowship as a Christian to a Christian. Nothing is more unseemly than argument on points of no importance when Christians meet face to face.
If one then eats freely with a good conscience, let him not dare to despise one who feels bound to a vegetarian diet – nor indeed let not the latter judge the former. It would be shameless to make a show before the other, or to seek to put one another in a wrong light. Certainly one must not be allowed to impose his conscience on the other.
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.” To make one or another of these points a regulation as regards fellowship would be the most miserable sectarianism. Thank God He cares perfectly for all His saints, and has tenderest concern for the proper exercise of their consciences. He is the Master, and the upholder of His own.
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” The reason for regarding special days can easily be seen in Judaism. God had established them in that system of things – certainly only as typical of better things to come, and not in themselves of any spiritual value. Yet if souls still clung in measure to the observance of those days as something that conscience requires of them, let no issue be raised on this account. Nor on the other hand are they to be allowed to require it of others.
The observance of the Lord’s Day is a far different matter. This was never imposed upon man, never in the least degree regarded as a commandment in Scripture, but rather indicated as a privilege graciously given by God in intimate connection with the free grace that the Gospel brings. Consequently it is a matter for the discernment of the heart as in the presence of God – a matter to be understood and appreciated only by those who understand and appreciate Divine grace. The disciples gathered together to break bread on the first day of the week. Their hearts overflowed with thanksgiving. The exacting demands of the sabbath day had nothing to do with this. It was a willing-hearted people who took advantage of this day of the Lord’s resurrection to seek in some special measure to please and honor Him.
What Christian could dare to say that he had a conscience against such service as this?Indeed, a thankful Christian heart rejoices to think of being able to have one day a week specially set aside in which he can refrain from all secular employments and pursuits in order to wholeheartedly devote the day to the Lord’s pleasure. Will any Christian claim that he has a right to use this time for his own selfish objects and interests? Sad, shameful exposure of where the man’s heart is!
Certainly no law requires him to give this time to the Lord: this is plain; but let us remember that no law required our blessed Lord to give Himself for us. Pure love was the motive of His heart. Can it be that there is no response of love in our own hearts? Not so much that we would even seek one day out of seven to quietly sit down to learn seriously of Himself? “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day” is a word of blessed example for us, – not impelled by law, but “in the Spirit.”
If, on the other hand, a man feels that the Lord’s authority is in the scrupulous observance of other days, let him not ignore his conscience. Let every man be fully assured in his own mind as the Lord’s authority over him, and gladly seek to own that authority in practice. Whether he eats or refrains from eating, let it be with a heart that can freely give God thanks.
For in living or in dying, man is no independent creature, answerable only to himself. This principle of course has strongest application to the believer, for he acknowledges the Lordship of Christ. “We live unto the Lord,” – “we die unto the Lord” – “we are the Lord’s.” Yet this Lordship is not only over believers. He is Lord of all. To this end He both died and now lives, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.
Thus we are plainly not to judge or belittle our brother in regard to these personal matters of conscience. For we shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ as well as he. In spite of the fact that he may have been mistaken in his thoughts, and we correct, yet he may receive more approval than we because he sought honestly to obey the Lord – sought to maintain a good conscience – while we in effect trampled upon his conscience. Solemn consideration for our souls!
The Word had long before recorded that every knee would bow to the Lord, and every tongue confess to God. Let us not then think that our brother must bow to us. The more pre-eminence any man seeks here, the more keenly will he feel his humbling then: he will bow and confess. “Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God.” None then can answer for his brother: all will be solemnly personal. How necessary then that we learn now to stand upon our own feet, our consciences individually exercised to discern both good and evil.
Thus we see that the soul must first of all be governed by the authority of the Lord. From verse 13 to the end of the chapter a further motive is set before us – that is, the love toward a brother that cares for his welfare. It is possible for one to boast that he is subject to the Lord, when he shows no proper concern for the blessing of the saints of God. This is hollow sham. If anyone says he loves God, let him love his brother also.
Knowledge is not given to us for the purpose of judging one who has not the same knowledge. A proper knowledge of God would “judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
Knowledge then is spoken of in verse 13, and Paul shows clearly that in his own mind there is no shadow of doubt as to it – “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.” As regards the creation of God, a soul taught of God can discern that these things do not in themselves have any moral character of evil. The evil is of course in the heart of man who corrupts these things. But if a Christian does not have this discernment such as Paul had, then whatever he regards as unclean is unclean to him. If he indulges in it, his conscience cannot but be defiled.
Hence, I must not make a show of my liberty before such an one. It would be no Christian courtesy to invite him to a meal that included meat or anything else that he considered unclean – nor to eat it coolly before him. Such measures to seek to break down his resistance are a shameful disregard for his soul’s prosperity: love is not in it.
“Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” The attitude of disregard for a brother’s conscience is the very principle of destroying him. But Christ died for him! – how great a contrast. He sacrificed His life to save him from destruction. Shall we sacrifice nothing for the sake of the blessing of saints of God? Let not our callous actions bring disrepute on that which in itself we know to be good – for men are quick to attribute to our doctrine any wrong ways we may be guilty of.
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” How many minor points men will occupy themselves with! And how unwilling it seems we are to forego our own privileges for the sake of “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Are these things not precious and real to us when we willingly deny ourselves for the sake of other saints?
This is truly serving Christ. It is a poor thing to be mere slaves of our convictions. True convictions should make us bondservants of Christ. If in these things it is really Him we are serving, we shall be acceptable to God and approved of men – not of course all men, but all right-minded men.
This is certainly no matter of giving up truth. Truth is not ours to dare to sell at any price: it is a trust given us of our Master, and we must be faithful to Him in it. But mere personal privileges I may and indeed ought to give up for the sake of others. It is an essential principle if we are going to “follow after the things which make for peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another.” There is no real service without the willing spirit of self-sacrifice. If the saints of God insist on their own rights, will they be at peace? will they edify one another?
“For meat destroy not the work of God.” Let us act on this, that God’s work is far more important than our own selfish appetites. “All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense.”
Since this is so, then “it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” While such “creatures of God” are “good” in themselves, as 1Ti 4:4 teaches us, yet it is also good to quietly leave them alone rather than to embolden a brother to partake against his conscience. This consideration is but the normal grace of Christianity.
“Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.” Faith must be an intensely personal thing. To press my faith on another would be virtually to do away with his exercise of faith. If I am before God, then let each individual saint be also before God. I cannot expect to be happy if I am judged in the thing that I allow. He that doubts is judged if he eats because it is not with the full liberty of personal faith that he eats. If we have any real concern for our brother we shall wholeheartedly seek to have him act only in faith. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” It is a solemn, sweeping statement. Sin is not merely in the outward acts of men, but in everything in which faith does not have part. Shall we dare thus to virtually make our brother sin?
Verse 1
To doubtful disputations; referring to such subjects as those discussed in the verses which follow.
SECTION 44 DO NOT JUDGE THY BROTHER CH. 14:1-12
Him that is weak in faith, receive; so as not to pass judgment on reasonings. One man has faith to eat all things; but the weak one eats herbs. He that eats, let him not despise him that eats not; and he that eats not, let him not judge him that eats: for God has received him. Who art thou that judgest another mans domestic servant? to his own lord, he stands or falls. And he shall be made to stand: for the Lord is able to make him stand. For one man esteems day above day: but another esteems every day. Let each one, in his own mind, be fully assured. He who regards the day, regards it for the Lord. And he that eats, eats for the Lord: for he gives thanks to God. So he that eats not, for the Lord he eats not; and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself; and not one of us dies for himself: For both if we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. If then we live, and if we die, we are the Lords. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that both of dead and living He may be Lord. And thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? Or also thou, why dost thou despise thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, I live, says the Lord: to Me shall bow every knee, and every tongue shall make acknowledgment to God. Therefore each of us, concerning himself, will give account to God.
Rom 14:1. A new topic, viz. our duty to certain of our fellow-Christians. The repetition of this exhortation in Rom 15:7, marks the completion of the discussion.
Weak in faith: one whose grasp of the teaching of Jesus is not so full and firm as to break down the barriers erected by training and circumstances: contrast Rom 4:19. Cp. 1Co 8:7-12.
Receive: as a brother in Christ: same word in Rom 14:3; Phm 1:17; Act 18:26; Act 28:2; Act 17:5.
So as not etc.: in order to avoid pronouncing judgment on matters open to discussion, i.e. on conflicting reasonings. To reject a man because he cannot grasp the Gospel in its fulness, is to pronounce judgment on the thoughts and doubts of his heart. This we have no right to do; and therefore are bound to receive him.
Rom 14:2. Statement of the special case which called forth the above general exhortation.
Has faith etc.: he so fully believes the words of Christ, e.g. Mar 7:15, that he can eat anything without fear of defilement.
Herbs, or vegetables: i.e. as his only food: practical result of the weakness of his faith. This abstinence from all meat and (Rom 14:21) from wine is not explained by the Mosaic distinction of clean and unclean animals. But all is explained if we suppose that Paul refers to the matter discussed in 1 Corinthians 8, where see my notes. The weak brother looks upon everything offered to an idol as forbidden and polluting. This is implied in Deu 7:25-26; and is confirmed by Act 15:29. So careful is he to avoid eating in pagan cities such as Rome or Corinth that which, unknown to him, has been consecrated to a false god, that, like Daniel, he abstains from all meat and all wine. And he believes that those men sin who eat all kinds of meat without asking ( 1Co 10:27) where it came from. But he has not grasped the teaching of Christ in Mar 7:18 : nothing that enters into a man can defile him. Else he would know (Tit 1:15) that to the clean all things are clean. We are not surprised that the man of strong faith, who knows that an idol is but an empty name, is in danger of looking with contempt (cp. Rom 14:3; Rom 14:10) on this needlessly scrupulous brother. Notice that Paul leaves the right or wrong of the matter an open question, but counsels concession in practice. Neither of these could he do if the continued obligation of the Mosaic distinction of meats were in question: contrast Gal 2:5; Gal 5:1-12. But, if he refers to idol sacrifices, his teaching here accords with 1 Corinthians 8-10. And the prohibition to touch that which belongs to an idol, though temporary, rested on deeper grounds than did the Mosaic regulations about food. This explanation is confirmed by the contrast of Jews and Gentiles in Rom 15:8-9; and by the discussion of the same matter at Corinth, where Paul probably wrote this epistle. The absence of any specific mention of idol sacrifices is a very uncertain ground of objection to this view: for Pauls readers knew to what he referred. The express mention of the matter in 1Co 8:1 arose probably (cp. 1Co 7:1) from its having been a matter of special inquiry.
Rom 14:3 a. An exhortation for each of the above classes.
Despise: because he cannot fully grasp the teaching of Christ. This passing exhortation, repeated in Rom 14:10, will be supported by strong arguments in Rom 14:13-23.
Let him not judge: appeal to the weak in faith.
Rom 14:3-4. First argument against judging.
God has received him: into His favour and service: same word and argument in Rom 15:7. Paul assumes, as we ought to do unless we have proof to the contrary, that all church-members are true servants of Christ; and therefore assumes that God has accepted this man against whom the only objection is that he eats meat. A solemn consideration for all who condemn their fellow-Christians. It may be that God has accepted them.
Who art thou etc.? a personal appeal supporting the foregoing argument.
Domestic-servant: same word in Act 10:7; Luk 16:13; 1Pe 2:18. We serve Christ under His own eye, as members of His household.
Lord: see under Rom 1:4.
His own lord: developing an idea in another-mans servant.
He-will-be-made-to-stand: although he eats meat.
The Lord: Christ, as almost always in N.T., except (cp. Rom 14:11) in quotations from O.T.: cp. 1Co 8:6; Eph 4:5. The proof that this man will be made to stand is that his continuance in the Christian ranks is wrought by the power, and therefore depends on the will, of Christ. This being so, He only has a right to pronounce judgment on him.
Rom 14:5. It is uncertain whether the word for is genuine, i.e. whether this verse is given as a reason for the foregoing or merely added without note of connection. The external evidence is almost equally divided. But the insertion of the word for gives, as I understand the argument, the true connection of the verses, a connection however not evident at first sight, and therefore easily overlooked by a copyist. This easy explanation of the omission favours the genuineness of the word; and seems to me to outweigh a slight preponderance possibly of the external evidence. The editors are divided. Tischendorf inserts the word for, as do Lachmann and Westcott, who however put it in brackets and thus mark it as doubtful. Tregelles and R.V. omit it without note. The latter ought at least to have given it a place in their margin.
Esteems: same word as judge in Rom 14:3-4; Rom 14:10; Rom 14:13.
Day above day: he judges one day to be above another. The other man pronounces a like sentence on every day. To which of the two classes in Rom 14:2, these two classes belong, Paul does not say. The order of clauses decides nothing: for it varies in Rom 14:3 and Rom 14:10, as in Rom 10:9 and Rom 10:10. Moreover, Gal 4:10; Col 2:16 suggest irresistibly that Paul did not set day above day. We cannot suppose that he set one day above the others in opposition to some who gave undue sanctity to every day of the week: and of any such we have in the N.T. no hint. To count every moment absolutely devoted to God, and therefore holy in the highest sense, is the very essence of the new life in Christ and is clearly taught in Rom 14:8. Undoubtedly the man to whom all days were sacred would look upon all food as clean. We shall see that this view gives to Pauls argument the force of a personal appeal. Its bearing on the divine institution of the Lords Day, I have discussed in a special note under Gal 4:11.
Let each etc.: let him form an opinion of his own, so that his action may spring from his own conviction, not from that of others. To do something merely because others think it right, is always humiliating and demoralising. Notice that Paul leaves the matter of days an open question.
Rom 14:6. A comment on the observance of the sacred day, to which is joined a similar comment on the action both of him that eats and of him that eats not.
Regards: same word as mind in Rom 8:5; Rom 12:3; Rom 12:16. He makes the day which he judges (Rom 14:5) to be above other days a special object of thought. But he does this for the Lord, i.e. in order to please his Master, Christ. The words which follow in the A.V. are certainly spurious, and mar the argument. They give undue importance to the matter of days; which is introduced here only to support the argument about eating meat.
And he that eats, like the man who regards the day, eats for the Lord: he believes that his Master has given him this food, and is pleased to see him eat and enjoy it.
For he gives thanks: proof of this.
To God: the Giver of all good. No man thanks God for that which he believes that God has forbidden. Therefore this mans thanks proves that he believes his eating to be pleasing to God.
And he that eats not etc.: the weak and strong put side by side as alike loyal to the great Master; their loyalty being in each case attested by their thanks to God. One man eats meat and thanks God for it: the other abstains in order, as he thinks, to please Christ; and eats his plainer food with equal gratitude.
The argument is this. Evidently the man who pays special honour to one day does so in order to please Christ: his mode of spending the sacred day proves this. He therefore claims our respect for his loyalty to Christ, even if we differ from him about the right way of showing it. His loyalty forbids us to doubt that his Master will support His faithful, though perhaps mistaken, servant. Just so, the man who eats all kinds of meat and thanks God for it may claim that his thanks prove that he believes that by eating he is pleasing God. This argument would have the more weight with the men of weak faith because it describes, in reference to another matter, their own conduct and motive.
If this exposition be correct, the matter of sacred days is introduced merely to illustrate and enforce what Paul has to say about abstinence from meat, the matter he has now in hand. He merely asks the man who eats no meat to credit the man who eats it with a motive as good as that which prompts some to keep a sacred day.
Rom 14:7-8. A broader statement supporting the chief point of Rom 14:6. Not only does the man before us eat for the Lord, but not one of us lives or dies for himself, i.e. to please himself. We both eat and drink and use all the powers which life gives us to work out Christs purposes: and, when we die, we pass into another world, in order, in a nobler sphere, to continue the same work. Similar teaching in Rom 6:11; 2Co 5:15.
We are the Lords: cp. 1Co 3:13 : inference from the foregoing. If the purpose of our life and death be to do Christs work, then we belong to Him and are His servants. And, if so, none but our Master has a right to judge us.
Rom 14:9. Confirmation of the foregoing description of the aim of our life and death, from the purpose of the death and resurrection of Christ. We were created (Col 1:16) for Christ, in order that we may find in His service our highest joy: but sin separated us from Him. To make it just (Rom 3:26) to pardon our sin and to reinstate us in the position for which we were created, God gave Christ to die; and (Rom 4:25) raised Him from the dead in order that His resurrection might be the sure ground of justifying faith: to this end Christ died and lived again.
Dead and living: cp. Luk 20:38. Notice the solemnity of our position as servants of Christ. By judging our brethren, we usurp the place of Him who died and rose from the dead in order that they may be His servants and He their Master.
Rom 14:10. An appeal to both parties, to him who judges and to him who despises. Notice the emphatic repetition of thy brother, one who claims a brothers affection.
For we all etc.: Pauls answer to his own questions.
We all: including Paul and those who judge and those who despise their brethren.
Judgment-seat: same word in 2Co 5:10; Act 25:6; Act 25:10; Act 25:17.
Of God: who (Rom 2:16) Will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ: cp. Rom 3:6. That we shall ourselves stand before the bar of God, warns us neither to judge nor despise others.
Rom 14:11. Proof of the foregoing, from Isa 45:23.
Every knee every tongue: visible and audible homage: a close parallel in Php 2:11.
Make-acknowledgment: either (Mat 3:6, etc.) of sins against God; or (Rom 15:9) of the greatness and goodness of God. The latter use is so frequent in the O.T. (e.g. Psa 105:1; Psa 106:1; Psa 107:1, LXX.) that we must accept it here. These great words describe evidently a voluntary and universal submission. This, we have no reason to expect until the final consummation described in 1Co 15:28. But Paul quotes words from God asserting solemnly, through the lips of a prophet, that a time will come when universal homage will be paid to Him.
This quotation, which looks forward to a world in which all shall bow to God, must be read in connection with Pauls solemn words in Php 3:19 : many walk enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction. The complete solution of this paradox lies hidden in the purpose of God. It does not imply that all who now live will ultimately bow to Christ.
Rom 14:12. Inference from the quotation.
Each of us about himself: a solitary responsibility.
Account: same word and sense in Mat 12:36; 1Pe 4:5; Php 4:15; Php 4:17. Gods solemn announcement that a time will come when universal homage will be paid to Him implies clearly that He claims this homage: and, if so, He will require an account from everyone who resists this claim. If we walk in the light of that day, we shall see our own littleness and be thus saved from contempt of our brethren; we shall feel our responsibility and thus be kept back from judging them.
In 44, Paul speaks chiefly to the men who condemn others for eating all kinds of meat. He tells us incidentally that these scruples arise from weakness of faith. But, instead of dismissing the matter by apostolic authority, he discusses it from the weak brothers own standpoint. He thus sets us an example of not despising our brethren; and gives us principles valid for various matters in actual life in which we have no express command to guide us. He says, Beware lest you condemn a man for that which Christ accepts as a mark, though perhaps a mistaken one, of loyalty to Himself; and remember how soon you will render an account of your service.
Paul refers here to conduct not inconsistent with loyalty to Christ, and therefore not absolutely sinful. In other cases, e.g. Rom 16:17; 1Co 5:3, he himself condemns the guilty person, and requires the Church to punish, and the members to withdraw from, him.
14:1 Him {1} that is weak in the faith {a} receive ye, [but] not to {b} doubtful disputations.
(1) Now he shows how we ought to behave ourselves toward our brethren in matters and things indifferent, who offend in the use of them not from malice or damnable superstition, but for lack of knowledge of the benefit of Christ. And thus he teaches 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.
(a) Do not for a matter or thing which is indifferent, and such a thing as you may do or not do, shun his company, but take him to you.
(b) To make him by your doubtful and uncertain disputations go away in more doubt than he came, or return back with a troubled conscience.
D. Conduct within Christian liberty 14:1-15:13
In Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13, Paul gave special attention to the problem of knowing how to live in Christian freedom. This section of Romans deals with Christian conduct when God does not specify exactly what we should do in every situation (cf. 1 Corinthians 8). In such cases some Christians will do one thing and others another, both within God’s will. How to handle these situations is the focus of this section.
Paul moved on to discuss a problem that arises as the dedicated Christian seeks to live within God’s will in the body of Christ (Rom 12:3-21) and in the body politic (ch. 13). As Christians, the 613 specific commands of the Mosaic Law no longer govern our conduct (Rom 7:6; Rom 10:4), but the principles that Jesus Christ and His apostles revealed do (cf. chs. 12-13). How then should we deal with conflicting applications of these principles? How should we conduct ourselves when our interpretation of God’s will differs from that of another believer? Paul explained how believers can disagree on nonessentials and still maintain unity in the church.
"From speaking of those who were too lax in the indulgence of natural appetites [Rom 13:11-14], the subject passes mainly to those who are too scrupulous. The object is not to remove these scruples, but to show those who have them and those who have them not how to live in Christian peace." [Note: Stifler, p. 222.]
The command to accept one another begins (Rom 14:1) and climaxes this section (Rom 15:7). Within it Paul also gave three other "one another" references (Rom 14:13; Rom 14:19; Rom 15:5).
1. The folly of judging one another 14:1-12
The apostle dealt first with the importance of not judging one another. This was a particular temptation to those Christians who believed that they should refrain from some practices that they believed were displeasing to God but which other Christians felt were legitimate. When Paul wrote, the first group included Jewish Christians who, because of their background in Judaism, tended to perpetuate the practices commanded in the Mosaic Code. Some Jewish Christians do this today as well. In our day this group also includes Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, who for one reason or another do not believe certain amoral (non-moral) practices are proper for a believer even though other Christians judge them permissible.
An amoral practice is neither right nor wrong in itself. It does not involve sin and, therefore, morality. Examples include food, drink, recreation, clothing, personal grooming, birth control, schooling, lifestyles, et al., when no sin is involved. Some Christians who have black or white mentalities have difficulty recognizing the existence of amoral activity; to them everything is either right or wrong. However, the Bible teaches that there are many activities that may be right but are unadvisable for any number of reasons. Also, there are actions that are right for some people but not right for others.
"This paragraph divides into three sections: Rom 14:1-12. The divisions between the sections are marked with similar rhetorical questions, each using the second person singular: ’Who are you who is judging the servant of another?’ (Rom 14:4 a); ’Why are you judging your brother?’ (Rom 14:10 a). . . . The first (Rom 14:1-3) and the third (Rom 14:10-12) state in almost identical language the main point of the paragraph: the ’strong’ are not to ’despise’ the ’weak’; the ’weak’ are not to ’judge’ the ’strong’ (cf. Rom 14:3 a and 10a). In the central section, Rom 14:4-9, Paul provides the theological foundation for these commands: every Christian is a servant of the Lord; and it is to that ’master,’ and not to any other fellow servant, that the believer must answer." [Note: Moo, pp. 834-35.]
Paul spoke here to those who, as himself, understood the implications of Christian liberty. The other group, the weak in faith, consisted of those whose faith was not strong enough to enable them to exercise the full liberty they had in Christ. Paul may have coined the designations "weak" and "strong," or these may have been terms with which his Roman readers were already familiar.
"The weakness in faith to which this chapter refers is not weakness in basic Christian faith but weakness in assurance that one’s faith permits one to do certain things . . ." [Note: Cranfield, 2:700.]
In view of what Paul wrote about the weak they appear to have been mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain foods and observed certain days because they remained loyal to the Mosaic Law. Peter at one time struggled with the extent of his liberty and moved from being weak to being strong in faith (Acts 10). However in the process of his growth he had a relapse (Gal 2:11-12). The weak in faith have an overly sensitive conscience about doing things that are permissible for a Christian. A sensitive conscience is a good thing, but it can sometimes lead a person to restrict his or her freedom unnecessarily. Paul urged the stronger Christian, who appreciated the extent of his freedom, to accept his weaker brother as an equal. Nevertheless he was not to accept him and then condemn him mentally, much less publicly, for his scruples.
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 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 , 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” () 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 () 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 Rom 14:1-23, 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} , “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, , 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 stumbling block 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 ( ) 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 stumbling block 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, , 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.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary