Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 14:15
But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
15. But ] Another reading is For. The documentary evidence is doubtful; and the evidence of connexion favours But. If For is adopted, it must be explained by treating Rom 14:14 as a parenthesis; and thus connecting Rom 14:13; Rom 14:15: q. d., “resolve to lay no stumblingblock for others; for you do lay a stumblingblock, when you neglect their scruples about food.” Reading But, the connexion shews it to be a word not of contrast but of pursuance: q. d., “But, granting what I have just urged, it is the opposite of Christian love to neglect your brother’s scruples.”
grieved ] put to pain; the pain of a conflict with conscience such as either to lead to its violation, or to harden prejudice.
with thy meat ] Lit., and better, on account of thy food. “ Meat,” in the E. V., is never exclusively “ flesh -meat.” The word is akin to French met; a thing put on the table. In market-language “green meat” still means vegetables; and so in some country districts “meat” alone still does. Here, of course, the word is inclusive of flesh.
not charitably ] Lit. no longer according: to love: “Thou forsakest the rule of Christian love which hitherto thou hast followed.”
Destroy not him ] The natural effect of neglect or contempt of the mistaken scruple would be to frighten, or embolden, the “weak brother” so as to become careless of his conscience in general; to “regard iniquity in his heart,” (Psa 66:18,) and so to cease to “abide in Christ.” Cp. the language of 1Co 8:11. Here the question what God would do for the protection or restoration of the “weak” Christian is manifestly out of sight, and out of place: not His covenant, but His servants’ duty and responsibility, is before us here. So again in Rom 14:20. “ Destroy ” is the present imperative in the Gr., and indicates that a course of conduct, not an isolated and finished act, is intended.
thy meat ] There is a subtle reproof in the word “ thy; ” a suggestion of the selfishness underlying the conduct in question.
for whom Christ died ] The profoundest of all motives for a Christian’s tenderness and care. Here, of course, the reference is to the Lord’s death for His Church, (Eph 5:25,) of which the “weak brother” is a member by faith.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if thy brother … – This address is to the Gentile convert. In the previous verse, Paul admitted. that the prejudice of the Jew was not well-founded. But admitting that still the question was, how he should be treated while he had that prejudice. The apostle here shows the Gentile that he ought not so to act as unnecessarily to wound his feelings, or to grieve him.
Be grieved – Be pained; as a conscientious man always is, when he sees another, and especially a Christian brother, do anything which he esteems to be wrong. The pain would be real, though the opinion from which it arose might not be well founded.
With thy meat – Greek, On account of meat, or food; that is, because you eat what he regards as unclean.
Now walkest – To walk, in the Sacred Scriptures, often denotes to act, or to do a thing; Mar 7:5; Act 21:21; Rom 6:4; Rom 8:1, Rom 8:4. Here it means that if the Gentile convert persevered in the use of such food, notwithstanding the conscientious scruples of the Jew, he violated the law of love.
Charitably – Greek, According to charity, or love; that is, he would violate that law which required him to sacrifice his own comfort to promote the happiness of his brother; 1Co 13:5; 1Co 10:24, 1Co 10:28-29; Phi 2:4, Phi 2:21.
Destroy not him – The word destroy here refers, doubtless, to the ruin of the soul in hell. It properly denotes ruin or destruction, and is applied to the ruin or corruption of various things, in the New Testament. To life Mat 10:39; to a reward, in the sense of losing it Mar 10:41; Luk 15:4; to food Joh 6:27; to the Israelites represented as lost or wandering Mat 10:6; to wisdom that is rendered vain 1Co 1:9; to bottles, rendered useless Mat 9:17, etc. But it is also frequently applied to destruction in hell, to the everlasting ruin of the soul; Mat 10:28, Who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell; Mat 18:14; Joh 3:15; Rom 2:12. That this is its meaning here is apparent from the parallel place in 1Co 8:11, And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish. If it be asked how the eating of meat by the Gentile convert could be connected with the perdition of the Jew, I reply, that the apostle supposes that in this way an occasion of stumbling would be afforded to him, and he would come into condemnation. He might be led by example to partake against his own conscience, or he might be excited to anger, disgust, and apostasy from the Christian faith. Though the apostle believed that all who were true Christians would be saved, Rom 8:30-39, yet he believed that it would be brought about by the use of means, and that nothing should be done that would tend to hinder or endanger their salvation; Heb 6:4-9; Heb 2:1. God does not bring his people to heaven without the use of means adapted to the end, and one of those means is that employed here to warn professing Christians against such conduct as might jeopard the salvation of their brethren.
For whom Christ died – The apostle speaks here of the possibility of endangering the salvation of those for whom Christ died, just as he does respecting the salvation of those who are in fact Christians. By those for whom Christ died, he undoubtedly refers here to true Christians, for the whole discussion relates to them, and them only; compare Rom 14:3-4, Rom 14:7-8. This passage should not be brought, therefore, to prove that Christ died for all people, or for any who shall finally perish. Such a doctrine is undoubtedly true (in this sense; that there is in the death of Christ a sufficiency for all, and that the offer is to all.) (compare 2Co 5:14-15; 1Jo 2:2; 2Pe 2:1), but it is not the truth which is taught here. The design is to show the criminality of a course that would tend to the ruin of a brother. For these weak brethren, Christ laid down his precious life. He loved them; and shall we, to gratify our appetites, pursue a course which will tend to defeat the work of Christ, and ruin the souls redeemed by his blood?
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 15. If thy brother be grieved] If he think that thou doest wrong, and he is in consequence stumbled at thy conduct.
Now walkest thou not charitably.] , According to love; for love worketh no ill to its neighbour; but by thy eating some particular kind of meat, on which neither thy life nor well-being depends, thou workest ill to him by grieving and distressing his mind; and therefore thou breakest the law of God in reference to him, while pretending that thy Christian liberty raises thee above his scruples.
Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.] This puts the uncharitable conduct of the person in question in the strongest light, because it supposes that the weak brother may be so stumbled as to fall and perish finally; even the man for whom Christ died. To injure a man in his circumstances is bad; to injure him in his person is worse; to injure him in his reputation is still worse; and to injure his soul is worst of all. No wickedness, no malice, can go farther than to injure and destroy the soul: thy uncharitable conduct may proceed thus far; therefore thou art highly criminal before God.
From this verse we learn that a man for whom Christ died may perish, or have his soul destroyed; and destroyed with such a destruction as implies perdition; the original is very emphatic, – , . Christ died in his stead; do not destroy his soul. The sacrificial death is as strongly expressed as it can be, and there is no word in the New Testament that more forcibly implies eternal ruin than the verb , from which is derived that most significant name of the Devil, , the DESTROYER, the great universal murderer of souls.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In this verse you have two reasons to induce the strong not to offend the weak: First, it is contrary to charity; to grieve a brother upon the score of meats, is to walk uncharitably; it is a violation of the royal law of love, which is against the grieving or offending others, 1Co 13:4. Two ways are weak Christians grieved, when others do unseasonably use their liberty.
1. They think such do offend God in eating that which he hath forbidden; and this is matter of grief to those that fear God, to see others transgress his laws.
2. They may be drawn by their example to do the like, against their own light and conscience; and this afterwards causeth grief and trouble; their consciences hereby are galled and wounded, 1Co 8:12.
Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died: this is the second reason why Christians should not use their liberty to the offence of others; it may occasion their ruin and destruction: q.d. Hereby, as much as in you lies, you take a course to destroy them for whom Christ died. You will alienate and estrange them from the Christian religion, or you will draw them into sin, and induce them (as before) to act against their consciences, and so hazard their salvation. See a parallel place, 1Co 8:11. Here a question may arise, whether any can perish for whom Christ died? The answer is, They cannot; and for this the Scripture is express, in Joh 10:28. See also Mat 24:24; Joh 6:39; 1Pe 1:5. How then is this text to be understood? The apostle doth not speak of those for whom Christ indeed did die, but of such as, in the judgment of charity, are held to be of that number. We must account all those who confess the faith of Christ, for such as he hath redeemed by his death.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
15. But if thy brother begrievedhas his weak conscience hurt
with thy meatrather,”because of meat.” The word “meat” is purposelyselected as something contemptible in contrast with the tremendousrisk run for its sake. Accordingly, in the next clause, that idea isbrought out with great strength.
Destroy not him with“by”
thy meat for whom Christdied“The worth of even the poorest and weakest brothercannot be more emphatically expressed than by the words, ‘for whomChrist died'” [OLSHAUSEN].The same sentiment is expressed with equal sharpness in 1Co8:11. Whatever tends to make anyone violate his consciencetends to the destruction of his soul; and he who helps, whetherwittingly or no, to bring about the one is guilty of aiding toaccomplish the other.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat,…. The apostle proceeds to give reasons why, though he was so fully persuaded that nothing was unclean of itself, and so he, and any other of the same persuasion, might lawfully eat anything; yet they should forbear, and not make use of this liberty; because if a brother should be grieved by it, that is, either should be concerned and troubled at it inwardly, both because the person that eats is thought by him to have transgressed a command of God, and because he himself is not only despised as a weak brother, but as if he was a “judaizing” Christian, and walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel; or else should be emboldened thereby to eat, and so wound and defile his weak conscience; or be so galled and offended at it, as to stumble and fall off from his profession of Christianity, and withdraw his communion, as judging there is nothing in it, no regard being had to the law of God:
now walkest thou not charitably; this is a breach of the rule of charity or brotherly love; such an one is a brother, and though a weak one, yet he is to be loved as a brother, and to be charitably walked with: true charity, or love, vaunts not itself over, nor is it puffed up against a weak brother; nor is it unconcerned for his peace, but bears with his weaknesses, and forbears the use of things grieving to him:
destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. This is to be understood, not of eternal destruction, that can never be thought to be either in the will or power of any man; such a degree of malice can never arise in the heart of any, to wish for, desire, or take any step towards the eternal damnation of another; and could any thing of this kind be among the men of the world, yet surely not among brethren of the same faith, and in the same church state; and were there any so wicked as to desire this, yet it is not in their power to compass it, for none can destroy eternally but God; see
Mt 10:28; besides, it is not reasonable to suppose, that eternal damnation should follow upon eating things indifferent, or be caused by an offence either given or taken through them; moreover, though such as only think themselves, or profess themselves, or are only thought by others to be such, for whom Christ died, may be eternally destroyed, yet none of those can, for whom Christ really died; for they are his special people, his peculiar friends, his own sheep, his body the church, which can never perish; and he, by dying, has procured such blessings for them, such as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, peace with God, and eternal life, which will for ever secure them from destruction: besides, should anyone of them be destroyed, the death of Christ would be so far in vain, nor would it appear to be a sufficient security from condemnation, nor a full satisfaction to the justice of God; or God must be unjust, to punish twice for the same fault: but this is to be understood of the destruction of such a man’s peace and comfort, which is signified by grieving, stumbling, offending, and making him weak; and the words are a fresh reason, why they that are strong in the faith of Christian liberty, should nevertheless forbear the use of it, to preserve the peace of a weak brother; which is a matter of importance, and the rather to be attended to, since it is the peace of one that belongs to Christ, whom he has so loved as to die for, and therefore should be the object of the regard and affections of such as believe in Christ and love him.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Because of meat ( ). “Because of food.”
In love ( ). “According to love” as the regulating principle of life. See 1Co 8 where Paul pleads for love in place of knowledge on this point.
Destroy not ( ). Present active imperative of , the very argument made in 1Co 8:10f.
With thy meat ( ). Instrumental case, “with thy food.” It is too great a price to pay for personal liberty as to food.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Be grieved [] The close connection with destroy indicates that the meaning falls short of be destroyed, but is stronger than made to feel pain. It is a hurt to conscience, which, while not necessarily fatal, may lead to violation or hardening of conscience, and finally to fall. Compare 1Co 8:9 – 12.
Meat [] . A general term for food.
Charitably [ ] . Lit., according to love. Rev. in love. See on 2Pe 1:6.
Him [] . The pronoun has a strongly defining force, explained by the following phrase.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat,” (ei gar dia broma ho adelphos sou lupeitai) “For if thy brother is grieved, because of thy food,” food which you eat, is offended by it, doesn’t understand as you do about it, 1Co 8:11. One must respect the scruples of a weaker brother though he does not share them.
2) “Now walkest thou not charitably,” (ouketi kata agapen peripateis) “You walk not at all according to love,” before him, in harmony with the principle of love, 1Co 13:2; 1Co 13:4-5; 1Co 13:7.
3) “Destroy not him with thy meat,” (me to Bromati sou ekeinon apollue) “Do not destroy that one by the kind of food you eat,” or by your food; It was inclusive of such that Paul asserted that he kept his body, passions, desires etc. under subjection to the will of Christ, lest his testimony were injured, 1Co 9:26-27. Even so should every Christian. One is not to tamper with the conscience of a weaker brother.
4) “For whom Christ died,” (huper hou Christos apethanen) “On behalf of whom Christ died,” no child of God has a moral or ethical right to do anything that might injure another personally or cause him to injure himself. If Christ died to save the weak brother’s soul, should not you and I, stronger brethren, do something sacrificially to save his life of useful service and influence for Christ? Rom 15:1-3.
CHARITABLE JUDGMENT
Those of us who have read classic history may remember an incident in the history of the Macedonian emperor. A painter was commanded to sketch the monarch. In one of his great battles, he had been struck with a sword upon the forehead, and a very large scar had been left on the right temple. The painter, who was a master-hand in his art, sketched him leaning on his elbow, with his finger covering the scar on his forehead; and so the likeness of the king was taken, but without the scar. Let us put the finger of charity upon the scar of the Christian as we look at him, whatever it may be, – the finger of a tender and forbearing charity, and see, in spite of it and under it, the image of Christ notwithstanding.
-Cumming
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
15. But if through meat thy brother is grieved, etc. He now explains how the offending of our brethren may vitiate the use of good things. And the first thing is, — that love is violated, when our brother is made to grieve by what is so trifling; for it is contrary to love to occasion grief to any one. The next thing is, — that when the weak conscience is wounded, the price of Christ’s blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach; and we must be basely given up to our own lusts, if we prefer meat, a worthless thing, to Christ. (428) The third reason is, — that since the liberty attained for us by Christ is a blessing, we ought to take care, lest it should be evil spoken of by men and justly blamed, which is the case, when we unseasonably use God’s gifts. These reasons then ought to influence us, lest by using our liberty, we thoughtlessly cause offenses. (429)
(428) From the words “destroy not,” etc., some have deduced the sentiment, that those for whom Christ died may perish for ever. It is neither wise nor just to draw a conclusion of this kind; for it is one that is negatived by many positive declarations of Scripture. Man’s inference, when contrary to God’s word, cannot be right. Besides, the Apostle’s object in this passage is clearly this, — to exhibit the sin of those who disregarded without saying that it actually effected that evil. Some have very unwisely attempted to obviate the inference above mentioned, by suggesting, that the destruction meant was that of comfort and edification. But no doubt the Apostle meant the ruin of the soul; hence the urgency of his exhortation, — “Do not act in such a way as tends to endanger the safety of a soul for whom Christ has shed his blood;” or, “Destroy not,” that is, as far as you can do so. Apostles and ministers are said to “save” men; some are exhorted here not to “destroy” them. Neither of these effects can follow, except in the first instance, God grants his blessing, and in the second his permission; and his permission as to his people he will never grant, as he has expressly told us. See Joh 10:27. — Ed.
(429) “ Vestrum bonum,” ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. Some, such as [ Grotius ] and [ Hammond ], [ Scott ], [ Chalmers ], etc., agree with [ Calvin ], and view this “good,” or privilege, to be Christian liberty, or freedom from ceremonial observances, (see 1Co 10:29😉 but [ Origen ], [ Ambrose ], [ Theodoret ], [ Mede ], etc., consider that the gospel is meant. The first opinion is the most suitable to the passage. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(15) But.The true reading is undoubtedly For, the connection of which is somewhat difficult to trace. It appears to leap over Rom. 14:14, and go back to Rom. 14:13. We may suppose that the substance of this verse recurs to the Apostles mind after the parenthetical statement just inserted, and though he does not repeat it in words, he connects on to it the sequence of his thought. The Christian should not put a stumbling-block in his brothers way. Not, indeed, that there is anything unclean in itself, but relatively to the person who so regards it. it is unclean. [Therefore the Christian should be careful as to what he does.] For to cause distress to another about a mere matter of food is to be uncharitable.
Two stages are noted in the words grieved and destroy. When one man sees another do that which his own conscience condemns, it causes him pain, but when he is further led on from this to do himself what his conscience condemns, he is in danger of a worse fate; he is morally ruined and undone. The work of redemption that Christ has wrought for him is cancelled, and all that great and beneficent scheme is hindered of its operation by an act of thoughtlessness or want of consideration on the part of a fellow Christian.
With thy meat.Rather, because of meat, on a mere question of meat.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Warning to the Strong against Injuring Weaker Brethren , Rom 14:14-23 .
After declaring his firm belief that nothing was intrinsically impure, and thus classing himself with the strong, the apostle earnestly presses upon them the duty of so using their liberty as not to offend and destroy the souls of the feebler brethren.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
15. Grieved The grief which one Christian may be supposed to feel when he beholds the transgression of another.
Charitably According to the law of love, which requires the sacrifice of our own convenience and taste for the good of the souls of others.
Destroy not The grieved brother might be induced through disgust to leave the Christian communion, and so be lost. It was the strong brother’s duty if possible to retain him within the Christian circle, even for the very purpose of inspiring him with a purer, firmer grounding in Christian faith and morality.
This passage belongs to that large class of proof-texts which show that a Christian may totally apostatize from a true faith, and so be finally lost, by warning against that result as a confessedly and practically possible reality. Such texts require us to fear such a catastrophe as what not only may happen, but for aught we know has often happened. The customary reply to this is that these warnings are the means to prevent that catastrophe, and God’s grace will take care that this shall always be successful. But if God has predetermined that no Christian shall ever fall, the very means used to prevent the fall are falsehoods. God’s pre-determination eternally precedes the warning and falsifies it. But here the warning is not given to the Christian not to apostatize. It is given to the destroyer; it warns him not to make another person apostatize. It directs him to consider that result as sure from a certain course of his own. And so sure does the apostle feel that result to be, so practically inevitable, that he is ready in the case to eat no meat so long as he liveth. (1Co 8:13.) Surely his Roman and Corinthian readers would think it very strange if the apostle should add in a sub-tone, “But the case of a weak brother’s being destroyed is by God’s decree absolutely impossible!” All these warnings are at once neutralized when the Christian has been told, “Do not be alarmed; God has determined from all eternity that you shall never fall.”
For whom Christ died This proves to a demonstration that Christ’s death for a man is not incompatible with the man’s final destruction. It both proves that Christ died for all, and that all men will not necessarily be saved because Christ died for all.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For if because of meat your brother is grieved, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your meat him for whom Christ died.’
Thus if the brother or sister who believed it to be wrong ate such meat they would be ‘grieved’, (we might say, conscience-stricken and filled with a sense of having sinned). And if it was of our persuasion, because they were eating with us, possibly at ‘the love feast’ or in a private gathering, then it would indicate that we were no longer walking in love. For we would be destroying them spiritually. So Paul exhorts them, ‘Do not destroy with your meat him for whom Christ died’. For us to do so would be for us to harm Christ Himself, for we would be harming one who was ‘in Christ’, one for whom Christ sacrificed Himself. This, of course, applies not only to participating in unclean food, but to any way in which we might cause Christians to stumble. That those for whom Christ died can suffer God’s judgment while still being ‘saved’ is made clear in 1Co 11:30-32.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 14:15. But if thy brother be grieved, &c. If then thy brother be offended with thy meat, thou walkest no longer charitably. It hence appears, that grieving a person does not signify merely putting himout of humour, but leading him into sin. The grief therefore is that which arises from a consciousness of having acted amiss, in conformity to the example of a person considered as superior, whether in rank or genius, knowledge or piety. See Hammond, Locke, and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Rom 14:15 . ] According to this reading critically beyond doubt (see the critical notes), which, however, Philippi, on account of the sense, regards as “absolutely untenable,” the apostle specifies the reason, why he has expressly added the exception . . . . The belonging to the principal sentence is, according to a very prevalent usage (see Baeumlein, Partik . p. 85), taken into the prefixed accessory sentence, so that the argumentative thought is: “not without good moral ground do I say: ; for it indicates a want of love, if the stronger one has not regard to this relation towards the weaker.”
] on account of food, i.e . because of a kind of food, which he holds to be unclean and sees thee eat.
] not: is injured , which would consist in the (Philippi, contrary to N. T. usage), but of moral affliction, i.e . vexation of conscience , which is occasioned by the giving of a (Rom 14:13 ). Analogous is Eph 4:30 . To understand it of the making reproaches on account of narrow-mindedness (Grotius, Rosenmller, Ewald), is gratuitously to import the substance of the thought, and does not correspond to the connection (Rom 14:13-14 ; Rom 14:20-21 ).
. ] i.e. in that case thou hast ceased to bear thyself conformably to love . This is the actual state of things which subsists, when what is expressed in the protasis occurs; the , namely, is conceived as the fault of the subject addressed . On , comp. Rom 7:20 , Rom 11:6 ; Gal 3:18 . To take the apodosis interrogatively (Hofmann), is considering the definite character, quite in keeping with the context, of the which is occasioned by the offence given quite unwarranted, and does not suit the words.
The is the possible result of the : destroy him not , bring him not into destruction , namely, through his being seduced by thy example to disregard his conscience, and to fall out of the moral element of the life of faith into the sinful element of variance with conscience. That we are to explain it of the eternal , is clear from . ; for in order to redemption from this Christ offered up His life therefore thou oughtest not to thrust back into thy (so dearly bought) brother through the loveless exercise of thy free principles. Comp. 1Co 8:11-12 . “Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam,” Bengel.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 15. But if thy brother be grieved ] It is his weakness to be grieved thereat, but gratify him howsoever. What one speaks of a plain place of Scripture, this verse, saith he, had been easy, had not commentators made it knotty; the like saith another of a Christian’s condition, it is gracious, happy, clear, sure, sweet, did not erroneous judgments vex and unsettle them.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
15. ] The reading , besides the overwhelming authority in its favour, is the more difficult and characteristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tholuck) depend on the . . ., for thus an awkwardness would be introduced into the connexion of the clauses: but I believe it to be elliptical, depending 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.
, barely put, to make the contrast greater between the slight occasion , and the great mischief done . The mere your brother, is an offence against love : how much greater an offence then, if this end in in ruining (causing to act against his conscience, and so to commit sin and be in danger of quenching God’s Spirit within him) by a MEAL of thine, a brother, for whom Christ died! “Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam.” Bengel. See an exact parallel in 1Co 8:10-11 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 14:15 . Many expositors here supply something; e.g. , “You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if,” etc. (Sanday and Headlam); but it seems simpler to connect the with the leading idea in the writer’s mind, Put no stumbling-block before a brother, for, etc. is contemptuous: “for the sake of food” thy brother is grieved. is the food which the strong eats in spite of his brother’s scruples. need not imply that the weak is induced, against his conscience, to eat also (though that is contemplated as following); it may quite well express the uneasiness and distress with which the weak sees the strong pursue a line of conduct which his conscience cannot approve. Even to cause such pain as this is a violation of the law of Christ. He who does it has ceased to walk , according to love, which is the supreme Christian rule. In the sense of this, and at the same time aware that the weak in these circumstances may easily be cajoled or overborne into doing what his conscience disapproves, the Apostle exclaims abruptly, . To tamper with conscience, it is here implied, is ruin : and the selfish man who so uses his Christian liberty as to lead a weak brother to tamper with his conscience is art and part in that ruin. The wanton contempt such liberty shows for the spirit and example of Christ is emphasised both here and in 1Co 8:11 f. Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum quam Christus vitam suam .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
But. The texts read “For”.
if. App-118.
be = is.
thy. Omit.
now . . . not = no longer. Greek. ouketi. App-105.
charitably = according to (App-104) love (App-135.)
Destroy. Literally loose, or pull, away from; the opposite to build up. See verses: Rom 19:20; Rom 2:12. 1Co 8:11.
him = that same.
with = by. Dative case.
for. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
15.] The reading , besides the overwhelming authority in its favour, is the more difficult and characteristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tholuck) depend on the …, for thus an awkwardness would be introduced into the connexion of the clauses: but I believe it to be elliptical, depending 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.
, barely put, to make the contrast greater between the slight occasion, and the great mischief done. The mere your brother, is an offence against love: how much greater an offence then, if this end in -in ruining (causing to act against his conscience, and so to commit sin and be in danger of quenching Gods Spirit within him) by a MEAL of thine, a brother, for whom Christ died! Ne pluris feceris tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam. Bengel. See an exact parallel in 1Co 8:10-11.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 14:15. , but) An antithesis. Not only faith, Rom 14:14, but also love ought to be present.- ) , [less is said than is intended]: comp. Heb 9:10; Heb 12:16; Heb 13:9.-, is grieved) The antithesis to this is the joy in Rom 14:17.- , now no longer) He places before his mind some one who stands stedfast in love, and intimates that he ought never lose sight of love. Love and joy, not love and grief, are connected together.- , according to love, charitably) Hence the connection of the first verse with the preceding chapter, Rom 14:8, is manifest.- , with thy food [meat]) Do not value thy food more than Christ valued His life.- , do not destroy) 1Co 8:11. Even the true brother may perish, for whom Christ most lovingly died.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 14:15
Rom 14:15
For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love.-This is usually interpreted: if it hurts the feelings of another or offends his sense of right. It is wrong to needlessly grieve a brother or do violence to his sense of right, but this is wholly a different matter. It means: If you so act, so eat meat as to lead your brother into sin, so that he falls or stumbles and his eternal well being is endangered, you do not walk in love toward him.
Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.-Do not use your privileges, especially of fleshly enjoyment, so as to lead your brother to destruction. Do not go into associations and partake of enjoyments that would lead him into temptations that he is not able to withstand. To do this would be to counteract the death of Christ and defeat the ends of his death for the sake of eating meat. You must be willing to deny yourself these fleshly gratifications rather than to nullify the sufferings of Christ for him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
thy brother: Eze 13:22, 1Co 8:12
now: Rom 13:10, Rom 15:2, 1Co 8:1, 1Co 13:1, 1Co 13:4, 1Co 13:5, Gal 5:13, Phi 2:2-4
charitably: Gr. according to charity
Destroy: 1Co 8:11, 2Pe 2:1, 1Jo 2:2
Reciprocal: Lev 11:2 – General Num 32:15 – ye shall 1Sa 26:19 – they have driven 1Ki 15:26 – in his sin Neh 5:8 – shall they Psa 73:15 – offend Eze 13:19 – to slay Dan 1:8 – defile Mar 9:41 – because Act 15:29 – ye abstain Rom 14:3 – despise Rom 14:20 – For 1Co 6:12 – are not 1Co 9:18 – that I 1Co 10:23 – things are lawful 1Co 10:28 – eat 1Co 10:29 – not 1Co 16:14 – General Gal 2:18 – General Phi 2:5 – General 1Ti 1:5 – charity
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
:15
Rom 14:15. This is the first time in this chapter that the word meat is used. Had the word “herbs” not been used in contrast to it in verse 2, we would have no reason for saying it means the flesh of animals, for the lexicon only defines it, “that which is eaten, food.” Hence the principle Paul is discussing is that God does not care what kind of food one eats, as long as he has no conscientious objections to it. If a brother has such objections, another should not induce him to eat it, defiling his conscience.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 14:15. For. The best authorities give this reading, which introduces the reason for speaking of the exception (Rom 14:14), namely, to warn against the lack of love in disregarding it
If because of thy meat (or, food) thy brother is grieved. The freer brother would eat that which the weaker reckoned unclean, and thus he would be grieved, vexed in conscience. This is not identical with destroy, which is a possible result of it
Thou art no longer walking according to love. Love limits liberty, and substitutes for it self-denial, even when the scruple is an incorrect one.
Destroy not by thy meat, etc. To this the grieving may lead; the weak brother may be so influenced as to act against his conscience, and so sin as to fall into eternal destruction. There is a pathos in the closing phrase: him for whom Christ died. If Christ gave up life for him, canst not thou give up a kind of food for him. Believers (the elect) are constantly spoken of as in danger of perdition. They are saved only if they continue steadfast unto the end (Hodge). This principle holds good in this warning also.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Vv. 15. If this verse be connected with the preceding by for, with the majority of the Mjj., it is very difficult to understand their logical relation. Meyer paraprhases thus: It is not without reason that I remind you of that (the preceding restriction); for love is bound to take account of such a scruple. Hofmann rightly judges this explanation of the for impossible; but is his own less so? He takes the phrase following in the interrogative sense: For, if thy brother is grieved thereby, wouldest thou for this error on his part henceforth cease to walk toward him in love? It is difficult to imagine anything more forced. We must therefore, though the T. R. , now then or but, has only a single Mj. (L) in its favor, prefer this reading (Reiche, Rck., De W., Philip.). This may be taken in the sense of now then, or in that of but. The adversative sense seems to me preferable. The but refers to the first part of Rom 14:14 : I know that nothing is unclean…, but if, nevertheless…The meaning is excellent, and the construction the more admissible because the second part of Rom 14:14 was a simple parenthesis., is grieved, hurt; this word expresses the painful and bitter feeling produced in the heart of the weak by the spectacle of the free and bold eating of the strong.
With the words: Thou walkest no more () charitably, we must evidently understand the idea: when thou actest thus. The threat, added by the apostle, of compromising thereby our neighbor’s salvation, is so grave, that it is not explicable at the first glance, and one is tempted to refer it to the sin which the weak believer would commit by imitating the strong; comp. Rom 14:20. But it is not till afterward that Paul comes to this side of the question, and it is far from probable that the weak man, at the very time when he is wounded by the conduct of the strong, could be tempted to imitate him. These words therefore refer to the profound irritation, the hurtful judgments, the breach of brotherly ties, which must result from such wounding. The asyndeton is striking: it shows Paul’s emotion when writing these last words…. By thy meat make him perish whom Christ saved by His death! The whole scene supposed by this verse is infinitely better understood if it is placed in the full love-feast, than if the strong and the weak are supposed taking their meal at their own houses. The following verses (Rom 14:16-19 a) complete by some secondary considerations the principal motive which has been expressed at the end of Rom 14:15.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. [“For” looks back to verse 13. Recklessness as to the welfare or safety of others is not loving. “Grieved” may express either a lapse into Judaism on the part of the weak because of the apparent worldliness of the strong, or it may indicate that the weak, tempted by the conduct of the strong, do things which are contrary to conscience, and hence come to grief (Mat 27:3-5). It is likely that the latter danger was most prominent to the apostle’s mind. (Comp. Rom 14:20; and 1Co 8:10) The context, containing the words “destroy” and “overthrow” (Rom 14:20), shows that the grief is more than mere fraternal disappointment at another’s laxity.] Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. [This is the strongest possible appeal. What pleasure of liberty can be so sweet as to justify us in destroying our brother’s life, and frustrating the agony and sacrifice of the Master in his behalf? Shall we set a higher value on our meat than Christ did on his divine life? How shall we look our Lord in the face if we have wantonly done such a thing!]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
15. For through thy meat thy brother is grieved thou art not walking according to divine love. Do not by thy meat destroy him for whom Christ died. This would clear the churches of all tobacco, beer, jewelry, etc., as so many of the brethren are grieved by these things. How in the world can anyone use them and have a clear conscience?
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 15
Thy meat; thy food.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. {14} Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom {15} Christ died.
(14) It is the part of a cruel mind to make more account of meat than of our brother’s salvation. Which thing those do who eat with the intent of giving offence to any brother, and so give him occasion to turn back from the Gospel.
(15) Another argument: we must follow Christ’s example: and Christ was so far from destroying the weak with meat that he gave his life for them.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The words "grieved" and "destroy" describe two different stages. When one person sees another doing what his own conscience condemns, it grieves him or causes him pain. When he then proceeds to do what his conscience condemns, he commits sin and ultimately experiences moral destruction.
The apostle’s point was this. If your behavior regarding amoral things is creating spiritual problems for another Christian, your conduct is not loving (cf. Rom 12:10). The welfare of a brother should obviously take precedence over our liberty to do something amoral (cf. 1Co 8:13). The stronger brother’s conduct could destroy the weaker brother’s walk with God permanently or just temporarily. It would be terrible for a Christian to destroy someone whom our Lord has saved!