CONTENTS.
As in chapter xii., Paul had insisted principally upon moral and religious duties, and in chapter xiii., on those of a political character, he here treats particularly of the duties of church members towards each other, in relation to matters not binding on the conscience. There are two points specially presented: the first is the manner in which scrupulous Christians, who make conscience of matters of indifference, are to be treated, vs. 1—12; and the second, the manner in which those who are strong in faith should use their Christian liberty, vs. 13—23.
ROMANS XIV. 1—23.
ANALYSIS.
SCRUPULOUS Christians, whose consciences are weak, are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned, ver. 1. This direction the apostle enforces in reference to those who were scrupulous as to eating particular kinds of food, and the propriety of neglecting the sacred days appointed in the law of Moses. Such persons are not to be condemned: 1. Because this weakness is not inconsistent with piety; notwithstanding their doubts on these points, God has received them, ver. 3. 2. Because one Christian has no right to judge another, (except where Christ has expressly authorized it, and given him the rule of judgment;) to his own master he stands or falls, ver. 4. 3. Because such harsh treatment is unnecessary; God can and will preserve such persons, notwithstanding their feebleness, ver. 4. 4. Because they act religiously, or out of regard to God, in this matter; and, therefore, live according to the great Christian principle, that no man liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself, but whether he lives or dies, belongs to God, vs. 6—9. On these grounds we should abstain from condemning or treating contemptuously our weaker brethren, remembering that we are all to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, vs. 10—13.
As to the use of Christian liberty, the apostle teaches that it is not to be given up or denied; that is, we are not to make things sinful which are in themselves indifferent, ver. 14. But it does not follow, that because a thing is not wrong in itself, it is right for us to indulge in it. Our liberty is to be asserted; but it is to be exercised in such a way as not to injure others. We must not put a stumbling-block in our brother’s way, ver. 12. This consideration of others, in the use of our liberty, is enforced: 1. From the great law of love. It is inconsistent with Christian charity, for our own gratification, to injure a brother for whom Christ died, ver. 15. 2. From a regard to the honour of religion. We must not cause that which is good to be evil spoken of, ver. 16. 3. From the consideration that religion does not consist in such things, vs. 17, 18. 4. Because we are bound to promote the peace and edification of the church, ver. 19. 5. Though the things in question may be in themselves indifferent, it is morally wrong to indulge in them to the injury of others, vs. 20, 21. 6. The course enjoined by the apostle requires no concession of principle, or adoption of error. We can retain our full belief of the indifference of things which God has not pronounced sinful; but those who have not our faith, cannot act upon it, and therefore should not be encouraged so to do, vs. 22, 23.
COMMENTARY.
VERSE 1. Him that is weak in faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations. This verse contains the general direction that weak and scrupulous brethren are to be kindly received, and not harshly condemned. Who these weak brethren were, and what was the nature of their scruples, is matter of doubt. Some say they were Jewish converts, who held to the continued obligation of the ceremonial law. But to this it is objected, that they abstained from all flesh (ver. 2,) and refused to drink wine (ver. 21;) things not prohibited in the law of Moses. Others think they were persons who scrupled about the use of such flesh only as had been offered in sacrifice to idols, and of the wine employed in libation to false gods. But for this limitation there is no ground in the context. Eichhorn, Einleitung III. p. 222, supposes that they were the advocates, of Gentile birth, of the ascetic school of the new Pythagorean philosophy, which had begun to prevail among the heathen, and probably to a certain extent among the Jews. But it is plain that they held to the continued authority of the Jewish law, which converts from among the heathen would not be likely to do. The most probable opinion is, that they were a scrupulous class of Jewish Christians; perhaps of the school of the Essenes, who were more strict and abstemious than the Mosaic ceremonial required. Asceticism, as a form of self-righteousness and will-worship, was one of the earliest, most extensive and persistent heresies in the church. But there is nothing inconsistent with the assumption that the weak brethren here spoken of were scrupulous Jewish Christians. Josephus says, that some of the Jews at Rome lived on fruits exclusively, from fear of eating something unclean. Weak in faith, i. e., weak as to faith (πίστει.) Faith here means, persuasion of the truth; a man may have a strong persuasion as to certain truths, and a very weak one as to others. Some of the early Christians were, no doubt, fully convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and yet felt great doubts whether the distinction between clean and unclean meats was entirely done away. This was certainly a great defect of Christian character, and arose from the want of an intelligent and firm conviction of the gratuitous nature of justification, and of the spirituality of the gospel. Since, however, this weakness was not inconsistent with sincere devotion to Christ, such persons were to be received. The word (προσλαμβάνομαι) rendered receive, has the general signification, to take to one-self; and this is its meaning here: ‘Him that is weak in faith, take to yourselves as a Christian brother, treat him kindly;’ see Acts xxviii. 2, Rom. xv. 7, Philemon vs. 15, 17.