Romans · Chapter 14

V. 1. Him that is weak-Through needless scruples. Receive-With all love and courtesy into Christian fellowship. But not to doubtful disputations-About questionable points.

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 “Romans 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.] mh eiv diakriseiv dia logismwn. 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.

Verse 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 apostle’s 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 apostle’s principles, would have been chargeable on the imposers.” — Doddridge.

Verse 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 Ovid’s 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.

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. (Romans 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.

Ver. 1. A new topic, viz. our duty to certain of our fellow-Christians. The repetition of this exhortation in Romans 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 Romans 4:19. Cp. 1 Corinthians 8:7-12. Receive: as a brother in Christ: same word in Romans 14:3; Philemon 1:17; Acts 18:26; 28:2; 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.

V. 2. All things-All sorts of food, though forbidden by the law.

Verse 2. One believeth that he may eat all things] He believes that whatsoever is wholesome and nourishing, whether herbs or flesh-whether enjoined or forbidden by the Mosaic law-may be safely and conscientiously used by every Christian.

Another, who is weak, eateth herbs.] Certain Jews, lately converted to the Christian faith, and having as yet little knowledge of its doctrines, believe the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats to be still in force; and therefore, when they are in a Gentile country, for fear of being defiled, avoid flesh entirely and live on vegetables. And a Jew when in a heathen country acts thus, because he cannot tell whether the flesh which is sold in the market may be of a clean or unclean beast; whether it may not have been offered to an idol; or whether the blood may have been taken properly from it.

Verses 2-4. For one believeth that he may eat all things — A converted Gentile, who rightly understands his Christian liberty, is firmly persuaded that he may eat any kind of food indifferently, though forbidden by the ceremonial law, (blood excepted, of which see on Acts 15:20,) without sin. Another, who is weak — A believing Jew, not thoroughly informed of his Christian liberty; eateth herbs — Namely, for fear lest he should offend by eating any meat forbidden by the law, or which was not killed in a legal manner. See Leviticus 17:10-14; Daniel 1:8. Let not him that eateth — That makes use of his liberty to eat any thing that is wholesome indifferently; despise him — As over-scrupulous or superstitious; that eateth not — That forbears the use of such kind of food as is forbidden by the law. And let not him which eateth not — Who, from a scrupulous conscience, abstains from many kinds of food; judge him that eateth — Censure him as profane, or as taking undue liberties. For God hath received him — Acknowledges both the one and the other for his servant, on account of their common faith in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel. This is a powerful argument for our conversing in a friendly manner, and holding communion with those who differ from us in opinion, on some points of lesser importance in religion. Who art thou — Whether weaker or stronger; that judgest another man’s servant — One over whom thou hast no power. To his own master he standeth or falleth — He must abide by Christ’s judgment only, to whom it belongs either to acquit or condemn him. Yea, he shall be holden up — If he offends in no greater points than these in debate among you, he shall be upheld in his Christian profession, and established to eternal salvation. For God is able to make him stand — And certainly will do it, if he continue to act conscientiously and uprightly.

2. He may eat all things—That is, according with the apostle’s own opinion, that all eatables were equally innocent. Eateth herbs—Plainly under the supposition that herbs alone are morally innocent. This is a different case from those who abstain from meats offered to idols only, or from those who abstain from meats that may have been touched by Gentile hands.

Ver. 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. Mark 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 (Romans 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 Cor. 8, where see my notes. The weak brother looks upon everything offered to an idol as forbidden and polluting. This is implied in Deuteronomy 7:25, 26; and is confirmed by Acts 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 ( 1 Corinthians 10:27) where it came from. But he has not grasped the teaching of Christ in Mark 7:18: “nothing that enters into a man can defile him.” Else he would know (Titus 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. Romans 14:3, 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 Galatians 2:5; 5:1-12. But, if he refers to idol sacrifices, his teaching here accords with 1 Cor. 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 Romans 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 Paul’s readers knew to what he referred. The express mention of the matter in 1 Corinthians 8:1 arose probably (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:1) from its having been a matter of special inquiry.

V. 3. Despise him that eateth not-As over-scrupulous or superstitious. Judge him that eateth-As profane, or taking undue liberties. For God hath received him-Into the number of his children, notwithstanding this.

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

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

Verses 2-4. For one believeth that he may eat all things — A converted Gentile, who rightly understands his Christian liberty, is firmly persuaded that he may eat any kind of food indifferently, though forbidden by the ceremonial law, (blood excepted, of which see on Acts 15:20,) without sin. Another, who is weak — A believing Jew, not thoroughly informed of his Christian liberty; eateth herbs — Namely, for fear lest he should offend by eating any meat forbidden by the law, or which was not killed in a legal manner. See Leviticus 17:10-14; Daniel 1:8. Let not him that eateth — That makes use of his liberty to eat any thing that is wholesome indifferently; despise him — As over-scrupulous or superstitious; that eateth not — That forbears the use of such kind of food as is forbidden by the law. And let not him which eateth not — Who, from a scrupulous conscience, abstains from many kinds of food; judge him that eateth — Censure him as profane, or as taking undue liberties. For God hath received him — Acknowledges both the one and the other for his servant, on account of their common faith in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel. This is a powerful argument for our conversing in a friendly manner, and holding communion with those who differ from us in opinion, on some points of lesser importance in religion. Who art thou — Whether weaker or stronger; that judgest another man’s servant — One over whom thou hast no power. To his own master he standeth or falleth — He must abide by Christ’s judgment only, to whom it belongs either to acquit or condemn him. Yea, he shall be holden up — If he offends in no greater points than these in debate among you, he shall be upheld in his Christian profession, and established to eternal salvation. For God is able to make him stand — And certainly will do it, if he continue to act conscientiously and uprightly.

3. Let not—The apostle himself belongs not to the weak or over scrupulous side, but to the strong or less scrupulous. He therefore first conciliates both sides, and then (verse 4) strongly maintains the sustainability by God of the stronger but less scrupulous thinkers. Despise—The natural feeling of the sounder mind toward the morbid conscience is contempt. Judge—The feeling of the stricter conscience toward the less scrupulous is condemnation. These weaklings are not so clearly weaklings in their own estimation. On the contrary, the apostle warns them against arrogant judging, and through 10-13 cites them to the judgment seat of Christ. God hath received him—A protective against the strong judgment of the weakling, continued through next verse. 4. God is able—Though condemned for lax conscience, God is mighty to sustain the advocate for the innocence of every diet. It is not always the stricter side of a moral question that is right.

Verse 3b.-4. First argument against judging.

God has received him: into His favour and service: same word and argument in Romans 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 Acts 10:7; Luke 16:13; 1 Peter 2:18. We serve Christ under His own eye, as members of His household.

Lord: see under Romans 1:4.

His own lord: developing an idea in another-man’s servant. He-will-be-made-to-stand: although he eats meat.

The Lord: Christ, as almost always in N.T., except (cp. Romans 14:11) in quotations from O.T.: cp. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 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.

Verse 4. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?] Who has ever given thee the right to condemn the servant of another man, in things pertaining to his own master? To his own master he standeth or falleth. He is to judge him, not thou; thy intermeddling in this business is both rash and uncharitable.

Yea, he shall be holden up] He is sincere and upright, and God, who is able to make him stand, will uphold him; and so teach him that he shall not essentially err. And it is the will of God that such upright though scrupulous persons should be continued members of his Church.

Verses 2-4. For one believeth that he may eat all things — A converted Gentile, who rightly understands his Christian liberty, is firmly persuaded that he may eat any kind of food indifferently, though forbidden by the ceremonial law, (blood excepted, of which see on Acts 15:20,) without sin. Another, who is weak — A believing Jew, not thoroughly informed of his Christian liberty; eateth herbs — Namely, for fear lest he should offend by eating any meat forbidden by the law, or which was not killed in a legal manner. See Leviticus 17:10-14; Daniel 1:8. Let not him that eateth — That makes use of his liberty to eat any thing that is wholesome indifferently; despise him — As over-scrupulous or superstitious; that eateth not — That forbears the use of such kind of food as is forbidden by the law. And let not him which eateth not — Who, from a scrupulous conscience, abstains from many kinds of food; judge him that eateth — Censure him as profane, or as taking undue liberties. For God hath received him — Acknowledges both the one and the other for his servant, on account of their common faith in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel. This is a powerful argument for our conversing in a friendly manner, and holding communion with those who differ from us in opinion, on some points of lesser importance in religion. Who art thou — Whether weaker or stronger; that judgest another man’s servant — One over whom thou hast no power. To his own master he standeth or falleth — He must abide by Christ’s judgment only, to whom it belongs either to acquit or condemn him. Yea, he shall be holden up — If he offends in no greater points than these in debate among you, he shall be upheld in his Christian profession, and established to eternal salvation. For God is able to make him stand — And certainly will do it, if he continue to act conscientiously and uprightly.

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 Matthew 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 Acts 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 verse 3 may show) that these weak in faith were very gentle in their judgments; and, 2, The phrase in 1 Timothy 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.

Verse 3b.-4. First argument against judging.

God has received him: into His favour and service: same word and argument in Romans 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 Acts 10:7; Luke 16:13; 1 Peter 2:18. We serve Christ under His own eye, as members of His household.

Lord: see under Romans 1:4.

His own lord: developing an idea in another-man’s servant. He-will-be-made-to-stand: although he eats meat.

The Lord: Christ, as almost always in N.T., except (cp. Romans 14:11) in quotations from O.T.: cp. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 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.

V. 5. One day above another-As new moons, and other Jewish festivals. Let every man be fully persuaded-That a thing is lawful, before he does it.

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another] Perhaps the word hmeran, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, &c. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian not having been bred up in this way had no such prejudices. And as those who were the instruments of bringing him to the knowledge of God gave him no such injunctions, consequently he paid to these no religious regard.

Another] The converted Gentile esteemeth every day-considers that all time is the Lord’s, and that each day should be devoted to the glory of God; and that those festivals are not binding on him.

We add here alike, and make the text say what I am sure was never intended, viz. that there is no distinction of days, not even of the Sabbath: and that every Christian is at liberty to consider even this day to be holy or not holy, as he happens to be persuaded in his own mind.

That the Sabbath is of lasting obligation may be reasonably concluded from its institution (see Clarke’s note on “Genesis 2:3”) and from its typical reference. All allow that the Sabbath is a type of that rest in glory which remains for the people of God. Now, all types are intended to continue in full force till the antitype, or thing signified, take place; consequently, the Sabbath will continue in force till the consummation of all things. The word alike should not be added; nor is it acknowledged by any MS. or ancient version.

Let every man be fully persuaded] With respect to the propriety or non-propriety of keeping the above festivals, let every man act from the plenary conviction of his own mind; there is a sufficient latitude allowed: all may be fully satisfied.

Verses 5, 6. And with respect to days, one man esteemeth one day above another — Thinks that the new moons and Jewish festivals are holier than other days, and ought still to be observed. Another esteemeth every day alike — Holds that the difference of days appointed by Moses has now ceased. The Jewish holydays only being the subject of controversy, what the apostle hath here written concerning them cannot be extended to the sabbath, instituted at the creation, nor to the Christian sabbath, the Lord’s day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind — That a thing is lawful before he does it, or well satisfied as to the grounds of his practice, that so he may not knowingly offend God. He that regardeth the day — That observes these new moons and festivals; regardeth it unto the Lord — That is, out of a principle of conscience toward God, and with a view to his glory. And he that regardeth not the day — That does not make conscience of observing it; to the Lord he doth not regard it — He also acts from a principle of conscience, and aims at God’s glory. He that eateth — Indifferently of all meats; eateth to the Lord — Endeavours to glorify him, as it becomes a good Christian to do. For he giveth God thanks — For the free use of the creatures, and for his Christian liberty respecting them. And he that eateth not — The food which the law forbids; to the Lord — Out of respect to God’s commands, he eateth not, and giveth God thanks — For his herbs, or that other food is provided, on which he may conveniently subsist, and that he is not forced to eat what he thinks unclean, out of absolute necessity.

5. Day above another—Literally, day over day. Inasmuch as the apostle in the former instance mentions the strong opinion first, namely, that which favoured eating all things, and which the apostle himself held; so by parallelism this must be the stronger opinion, and held by the apostle himself, as being the first. And there is proof from the apostle’s conduct that he did esteem one day above another. Every day alike—The word alike being in italics is of course not in the Greek, and, as supplied by the translators, perverts perhaps the meaning. Let it be noted that the Greek word accurately twice rendered esteemeth expresses in both cases precisely the same state of mind. And then we have the result that, whereas one’s esteem raises a particular day to a certain holy elevation over another, so the other’s esteem assumes to raise all to the same holy elevation. That is, Paul elevates the seventh day above the others to a sabbath, and the other equalizes all days, not by sinking the sabbath to a secular day, but by raising all days to a sabbatical rank. So that as all his eating of vegetable food is a holy fast, (Matthew 3:4,) so all his days are, in his mysticism, holy sabbaths. Paul will not now condemn this high strain of conscience; but he will defend the esteemer of one day above another against the censoriousness of this ultra pietist.

Ver. 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 Romans 14:3, 4, 10, 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 Romans 14:2, these two classes belong, Paul does not say. The order of clauses decides nothing: for it varies in Romans 14:3 and Romans 14:10, as in Romans 10:9 and Romans 10:10. Moreover, Galatians 4:10; Colossians 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 Romans 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 Paul’s argument the force of a personal appeal. Its bearing on the divine institution of the Lord’s Day, I have discussed in a special note under Galatians 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.

V. 6. Regardeth it to the Lord-That is, out of a principle of conscience toward God.

To the Lord he doth not regard it-He also acts from a principle of conscience.

He that eateth not-Flesh.

Giveth God thanks-For his herbs.

Verse 6. He that regardeth the day] A beautiful apology for mistaken sincerity and injudicious reformation. Do not condemn the man for what is indifferent in itself: if he keep these festivals, his purpose is to honour God by the religious observance of them. On the other hand, he who finds that he cannot observe them in honour of God, not believing that God has enjoined them, he does not observe them at all. In like manner, he that eateth any creature of God, which is wholesome and proper food, gives thanks to God as the author of all good. And he who cannot eat of all indiscriminately, but is regulated by the precepts in the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats, also gives God thanks. Both are sincere; both upright; both act according to their light; God accepts both; and they should bear with each other.

Verses 5, 6. And with respect to days, one man esteemeth one day above another — Thinks that the new moons and Jewish festivals are holier than other days, and ought still to be observed. Another esteemeth every day alike — Holds that the difference of days appointed by Moses has now ceased. The Jewish holydays only being the subject of controversy, what the apostle hath here written concerning them cannot be extended to the sabbath, instituted at the creation, nor to the Christian sabbath, the Lord’s day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind — That a thing is lawful before he does it, or well satisfied as to the grounds of his practice, that so he may not knowingly offend God. He that regardeth the day — That observes these new moons and festivals; regardeth it unto the Lord — That is, out of a principle of conscience toward God, and with a view to his glory. And he that regardeth not the day — That does not make conscience of observing it; to the Lord he doth not regard it — He also acts from a principle of conscience, and aims at God’s glory. He that eateth — Indifferently of all meats; eateth to the Lord — Endeavours to glorify him, as it becomes a good Christian to do. For he giveth God thanks — For the free use of the creatures, and for his Christian liberty respecting them. And he that eateth not — The food which the law forbids; to the Lord — Out of respect to God’s commands, he eateth not, and giveth God thanks — For his herbs, or that other food is provided, on which he may conveniently subsist, and that he is not forced to eat what he thinks unclean, out of absolute necessity.

Ver. 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.

6. Regardeth it unto the Lord—Paul justifies the maintainer of the special day as acceptable to God. But it is remarkable that the following clause, He that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it, is decided by scholars to be spurious. It was originally inserted by copyists, who inferred it to be needed from the fact that in the last half of this verse both the positive and negative side of the eating of meats are commended as being done unto the Lord. It is therefore very remarkable that while in regard to the eating of meats both sides are thus commended in regard to days it is only one side, namely, the esteem of the special day alone that is so sanctioned. This appears to be a decisive indication that it was the apostle’s own opinion. This passage, therefore, is a strong proof-text of the validity of the Christian sabbath. (See Dr. Fairbairn’s work on “Revelation of Law,” whence much of this argument is suggested.)

In our Saviour’s life every day was a sacred day, redolent with the holiness of the sabbath; and yet one day was by him acknowledged to possess that special rank. Similarly, in Paul’s own life every day was holy, yet one in seven only was sabbath. What Jesus did, what Paul did in his human measure, that these pietists professed and aspired to do, and perhaps succeeded; namely, drown the special sanctity of one day in the general sanctity of all, and so doctrinally abolish the sabbath. It is one thing to raise every day to a sabbatic holiness, and another to sink the sabbath to an ordinary secularity. Yet this mysticism of these pietists marred the practical soundness of secular Christian life; and, though bearing its palliations, was a weakness in the faith, productive of ungrounded censoriousness, and endangering perseverance in Christian life.

Tolerance enjoined in view of the Judgment of God the Lord of both, 7-13. The apostle now impressively dissuades both parties from judging each other by the fact that they were tied to the judgment throne of God. It would be a fearful usurpation of that awful office of the infinite and holy One should brother Christians sit in judgment upon each other.

Ver. 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 Romans 8:5; 12:3, 16. He makes the day which he judges (Romans 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 man’s 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.

V. 7. None of us-Christians, in the things we do. Liveth to himself-Is at his own disposal; doeth his own will.

Verse 7. None of us liveth to himself] The Greek writers use the phrase, eautw zhn, to signify acting according to one’s own judgment, following one’s own opinion. Christians must act in all things according to the mind and will of God, and not follow their own wills. The apostle seems to intimate that in all the above cases each must endeavour to please God, for he is accountable to him alone for his conduct in these indifferent things. God is our master, we must live to him, as we live under his notice and by his bounty; and when we cease to live among men, we are still in his hand. Therefore, what we do, or what we leave undone, should be in reference to that eternity which is ever at hand.

Verses 7-9. For none of us — True Christians, in the things we do, liveth to himself — Is at his own disposal, doth his own will; and no man dieth to himself — Only for his own advantage, and according to his own pleasure, when he will. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord — Spend our lives in his service, and according to his will; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord — Either by sacrificing our lives to his glory, if he demand it of us; or, if we expire in a natural way, by behaving to the last as those who have his love ruling in our hearts, and his sacred cause still in our eye. Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s — In consequence of being thus truly devoted to Christ, both in life and death, we have the pleasure of knowing that living or dying we are his servants; yea, and the objects of his favour and care. For to this end — Or purpose; Christ both died — Paying thereby the price of our ransom; and rose — Receiving in consequence thereof his purchase and dominion; and revived — Or liveth, as ezhsen may be rendered, namely, ever liveth, not only to appear in the presence of God as our advocate and intercessor, but that, having subdued our enemies, he might exercise his dominion over us, and be Lord — Of all his redeemed people, both such as are yet alive, and those that are dead. “From this passage, and from <502910> Philippians 2:10, where those under the earth are said to bow the knee to Jesus, it may be inferred, that the souls of men at death neither sleep nor fall into a state of insensibility. For if that were the case, Christ could not, with propriety, be said to rule over them, nor they be said to bow the knee to him.” — Macknight.

7. None of us—None of us as men, and especially none of us as Christians. Liveth to himself—However self-sufficient in our judgments, we are not independent beings. We are fastened by strong ties to the throne of God. By creation, by redemption, by self-consecration, (see notes on chap. 5:1, 2,) we are Christ’s and God’s.

Ver. 7.-8. A broader statement supporting the chief point of Romans 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 Christ’s purposes: and, when we die, we pass into another world, in order, in a nobler sphere, to continue the same work. Similar teaching in Romans 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:15.

We are the Lord’s: cp. 1 Corinthians 3:13: inference from the foregoing. If the purpose of our life and death be to do Christ’s work, then we belong to Him and are His servants. And, if so, none but our Master has a right to judge us.

Verses 7-9. For none of us — True Christians, in the things we do, liveth to himself — Is at his own disposal, doth his own will; and no man dieth to himself — Only for his own advantage, and according to his own pleasure, when he will. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord — Spend our lives in his service, and according to his will; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord — Either by sacrificing our lives to his glory, if he demand it of us; or, if we expire in a natural way, by behaving to the last as those who have his love ruling in our hearts, and his sacred cause still in our eye. Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s — In consequence of being thus truly devoted to Christ, both in life and death, we have the pleasure of knowing that living or dying we are his servants; yea, and the objects of his favour and care. For to this end — Or purpose; Christ both died — Paying thereby the price of our ransom; and rose — Receiving in consequence thereof his purchase and dominion; and revived — Or liveth, as ezhsen may be rendered, namely, ever liveth, not only to appear in the presence of God as our advocate and intercessor, but that, having subdued our enemies, he might exercise his dominion over us, and be Lord — Of all his redeemed people, both such as are yet alive, and those that are dead. “From this passage, and from <502910> Philippians 2:10, where those under the earth are said to bow the knee to Jesus, it may be inferred, that the souls of men at death neither sleep nor fall into a state of insensibility. For if that were the case, Christ could not, with propriety, be said to rule over them, nor they be said to bow the knee to him.” — Macknight.

8. Live… die—The apostle with plentiful reiteration seeks to impress the contending parties with the ties which bind them to the judgment seat, and which should hush all angry contention about non-essentials. Living or dying we are the Lord’s property, and neither side is to be assailed or damaged by the other.

Ver. 7.-8. A broader statement supporting the chief point of Romans 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 Christ’s purposes: and, when we die, we pass into another world, in order, in a nobler sphere, to continue the same work. Similar teaching in Romans 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:15.

We are the Lord’s: cp. 1 Corinthians 3:13: inference from the foregoing. If the purpose of our life and death be to do Christ’s work, then we belong to Him and are His servants. And, if so, none but our Master has a right to judge us.

Verse 9. Christ both died and rose] That we are not our own, but are the Lord’s both in life and death, is evident from this-that Christ lived, and died, and rose again, that he might be the Lord of the dead and the living; for his power extends equally over both worlds: separate, as well as embodied spirits, are under his authority; and he it is who is to raise even the dead to life: and thus all throughout eternity shall live under his dominion.

The clause kai anesth, and rose, is wanting in several reputable MSS., and certainly is not necessary to the text. Griesbach omits the words, and reads apeqane kai ezhsen, died and lived; of which Professor White says, lectio indubie genuina: “this reading is indisputably genuine.”

Verses 7-9. For none of us — True Christians, in the things we do, liveth to himself — Is at his own disposal, doth his own will; and no man dieth to himself — Only for his own advantage, and according to his own pleasure, when he will. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord — Spend our lives in his service, and according to his will; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord — Either by sacrificing our lives to his glory, if he demand it of us; or, if we expire in a natural way, by behaving to the last as those who have his love ruling in our hearts, and his sacred cause still in our eye. Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s — In consequence of being thus truly devoted to Christ, both in life and death, we have the pleasure of knowing that living or dying we are his servants; yea, and the objects of his favour and care. For to this end — Or purpose; Christ both died — Paying thereby the price of our ransom; and rose — Receiving in consequence thereof his purchase and dominion; and revived — Or liveth, as ezhsen may be rendered, namely, ever liveth, not only to appear in the presence of God as our advocate and intercessor, but that, having subdued our enemies, he might exercise his dominion over us, and be Lord — Of all his redeemed people, both such as are yet alive, and those that are dead. “From this passage, and from <502910> Philippians 2:10, where those under the earth are said to bow the knee to Jesus, it may be inferred, that the souls of men at death neither sleep nor fall into a state of insensibility. For if that were the case, Christ could not, with propriety, be said to rule over them, nor they be said to bow the knee to him.” — Macknight.

9. Died… rose… revived—By the correct text this should read simply, Christ both died and lived.

Ver. 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 (Colossians 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 (Romans 3:26) to pardon our sin and to reinstate us in the position for which we were created, God gave Christ to die; and (Romans 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. Luke 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.

V. 10. Or why dost thou despise thy brother-Hitherto the apostle as addressed the weak brother: now he speaks to the stronger.

Verse 10. But why dost thou] Christian Jew, observing the rites of the Mosaic law, judge-condemn thy brother-the Christian Gentile, who does not think himself bound by this law?

Or why dost thou] Christian Gentile, set at nought thy Christian Jewish brother, as if he were unworthy of thy regard, because he does not yet believe that the Gospel has set him free from the rites and ceremonies of the law?

It is a true saying of Mr. Heylin, on this verse: The superstitious are prone to judge, and those who are not superstitious are prone to despise. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.] Why should we then judge and condemn each other? We are accountable to God for our conduct, and shall be judged at his bar; and let us consider that whatever measure we mete, the same shall be measured unto us again.

Verses 10-12. But why dost thou judge — Or condemn; thy Gentile brother — Because he neglects the distinction of meats and days? Or why dost thou — O Gentile believer; set at naught — And deride, as weak or superstitious, thy Jewish brother, who conscientiously observes that burdensome ritual, from which thou art so happy as to apprehend thyself free? This censoriousness, or contempt, is greatly to be blamed; and, as well as the judging and condemning just mentioned, must very ill become the state in which we are, and must quickly be: for no principle of our common faith is more certain than this, that we shall all stand and take our trial before the judgment-seat of Christ — And it is surely a dangerous presumption to anticipate that judgment. For it is written — In the Jewish Scriptures, (Isaiah 45:23,) As I live, saith the Lord — An oath proper to him, because he only possesseth life infinite and independent; every knee shall bow to me — Shall stoop to my dominion; and every tongue shall confess to God — Shall acknowledge my sovereignty, which shall be done most fully and perfectly at the day of judgment. The Lord grant we may find mercy in that day! And may it also be imparted to those who have differed from us! Yea, to those who have censured and condemned us for things which we have done from a desire to please him, or have refused to do from a fear of offending him. So then every one of us — The high, as well as the low, the rich, as well as the poor; shall give account of himself to God — Of his own conduct, and not of the weaknesses of others; and therefore we should not trouble ourselves about them, but look to ourselves.

10. Thy brother—Each party admitted the other to be Christian, and therefore brother.

Ver. 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 brother’s affection.

For we all etc.: Paul’s answer to his own questions.

We all: including Paul and those who judge and those who despise their brethren.

Judgment-seat: same word in 2 Corinthians 5:10; Acts 25:6, 10, 17.

Of God: “who (Romans 2:16) Will judge the secrets of men through Jesus Christ:” cp. Romans 3:6. That we shall ourselves stand before the bar of God, warns us neither to judge nor despise others.

V. 11. As I live-An oath proper to him, because he only possesseth life infinite and independent. It is Christ who is here termed both Lord and God; as it is he to whom we live, and to whom we die.

Every tongue shall confess to God-Shall own him as their rightful Lord; which shall then only be accomplished in its full extent. The Lord grant we may find mercy in that day; and may it also be imparted to those who have differed from us! yea, to those who have censured and condemned us for things which we have done from a desire to please him, or refused to do from a fear of offending him. Isaiah 45:23

Verses 10-12. But why dost thou judge — Or condemn; thy Gentile brother — Because he neglects the distinction of meats and days? Or why dost thou — O Gentile believer; set at naught — And deride, as weak or superstitious, thy Jewish brother, who conscientiously observes that burdensome ritual, from which thou art so happy as to apprehend thyself free? This censoriousness, or contempt, is greatly to be blamed; and, as well as the judging and condemning just mentioned, must very ill become the state in which we are, and must quickly be: for no principle of our common faith is more certain than this, that we shall all stand and take our trial before the judgment-seat of Christ — And it is surely a dangerous presumption to anticipate that judgment. For it is written — In the Jewish Scriptures, (Isaiah 45:23,) As I live, saith the Lord — An oath proper to him, because he only possesseth life infinite and independent; every knee shall bow to me — Shall stoop to my dominion; and every tongue shall confess to God — Shall acknowledge my sovereignty, which shall be done most fully and perfectly at the day of judgment. The Lord grant we may find mercy in that day! And may it also be imparted to those who have differed from us! Yea, to those who have censured and condemned us for things which we have done from a desire to please him, or have refused to do from a fear of offending him. So then every one of us — The high, as well as the low, the rich, as well as the poor; shall give account of himself to God — Of his own conduct, and not of the weaknesses of others; and therefore we should not trouble ourselves about them, but look to ourselves.

11. Written—Isaiah 45:23, quoted substantially, not verbally. The prophet is describing the supremacy of Jehovah in the blessed future, and the apostle applies it to Christ in that his highest act of supremacy is the judgment of the world. Every tongue shall confess—In the prophet, Every tongue shall swear; that is, swear, or confess by oath, allegiance to God. The words describe not a universal salvation, but a universal subjection, willing or unwilling, to the divine judgment.

Ver. 11. Proof of the foregoing, from Isaiah 45:23. Every knee… every tongue: visible and audible homage: a close parallel in <503211> Philippians 2:11.

Make-acknowledgment: either (Matthew 3:6, etc.) of sins against God; or (Romans 15:9) of the greatness and goodness of God. The latter use is so frequent in the O.T. (e.g. <19A501>Psalm 105:1; 106:1; 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 1 Corinthians 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 Paul’s solemn words in Philippians 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.

Verse 12. Every one of us shall give account of himself] We shall not, at the bar of God, be obliged to account for the conduct of each other-each shall give account of himself: and let him take heed that he be prepared to give up his accounts with joy.

Verses 10-12. But why dost thou judge — Or condemn; thy Gentile brother — Because he neglects the distinction of meats and days? Or why dost thou — O Gentile believer; set at naught — And deride, as weak or superstitious, thy Jewish brother, who conscientiously observes that burdensome ritual, from which thou art so happy as to apprehend thyself free? This censoriousness, or contempt, is greatly to be blamed; and, as well as the judging and condemning just mentioned, must very ill become the state in which we are, and must quickly be: for no principle of our common faith is more certain than this, that we shall all stand and take our trial before the judgment-seat of Christ — And it is surely a dangerous presumption to anticipate that judgment. For it is written — In the Jewish Scriptures, (Isaiah 45:23,) As I live, saith the Lord — An oath proper to him, because he only possesseth life infinite and independent; every knee shall bow to me — Shall stoop to my dominion; and every tongue shall confess to God — Shall acknowledge my sovereignty, which shall be done most fully and perfectly at the day of judgment. The Lord grant we may find mercy in that day! And may it also be imparted to those who have differed from us! Yea, to those who have censured and condemned us for things which we have done from a desire to please him, or have refused to do from a fear of offending him. So then every one of us — The high, as well as the low, the rich, as well as the poor; shall give account of himself to God — Of his own conduct, and not of the weaknesses of others; and therefore we should not trouble ourselves about them, but look to ourselves.

12. Every one of us—Of every party, whether judging or judged of each other. Each must come under the final scrutiny of God.

Ver. 12. Inference from the quotation.

Each of us about himself: a solitary responsibility.

Account: same word and sense in Matthew 12:36; 1 Peter 4:5; Philippians 4:15, 17. God’s 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 brother’s 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. Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:3, he himself condemns the guilty person, and requires the Church to punish, and the members to withdraw from, him.

V. 13. But judge this rather-Concerning ourselves. Not to lay a stumblingblock-By moving him to do as thou doest, though against his conscience.

Or a scandal-Moving him to hate or judge thee.

Verse 13. Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more] Let us abandon such rash conduct; it is dangerous, it is uncharitable: judgment belongs to the Lord, and he will condemn those only who should not be acquitted.

That no man put a stumbling block] Let both the converted Jew and Gentile consider that they should labour to promote each other’s spiritual interests, and not be a means of hindering each other in their Christian course; or of causing them to abandon the Gospel, on which, and not on questions of rites and ceremonies, the salvation of their soul depends.

Verse 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any more — Seeing that judgment belongs to Christ. “The apostle’s meaning is, Since we are all the servants of Christ, and are to be judged by him at the last day, we ought not to usurp his prerogative, by pronouncing one another profane, or bigoted, or wicked, merely because we differ in opinion about matters, concerning which Christ hath commanded us to judge for ourselves. Nevertheless, notorious wickedness, whether in principle or practice, whereby society is injured,” and God dishonoured, “being a matter subject to no doubt, we ought not only to judge and condemn in our own minds every instance thereof, but should rebuke those sharply who are guilty of it.” But judge this rather — Instead of judging others, let us observe this as an important rule for our conduct; that no man put a stumbling-block — Any cause of stumbling; or an occasion to fall — Into sin; in his brother’s way — Hindering him in his way to heaven: let us do nothing, how indifferent soever it may be in itself, which may tend to prejudice, discourage, or mislead any other Christian; especially let us not, by an unseasonable use of our Christian liberty, induce him to act against his conscience, or with a doubting conscience, or unnecessarily move him to hate or judge us.

13. Judge this rather—Rather than judge each other, let us judge what our own conduct should be toward each other. Stumbling-block—(See note on Matthew 18:7.)

Warning to the Strong against Injuring Weaker Brethren, 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.

ROMANS

SECTION 45 — BE CAREFUL NOT TO INJURE

THY BROTHER CH. 14:13-23

Let us not then any longer judge one another: but judge this rather, not to set a stumbling-block for thy brother, or a snare. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common of itself; except that, to him who reckons anything to be common, to that man it is common. For, if because of food thy brother is made sorrowful, no longer dost thou walk according to love. Do not, by thy food, destroy him on whose behalf Christ died. Let not then your good thing be evil spoken of: For the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this serves Christ is well-pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore pursue the things of peace and the things of mutual edification. Do not because of food pull down the work of God. All things are clean: but it is evil to the man who eats with stumbling. It is good not to eat meat, nor drink wine, nor anything in which thy brother stumbles. What faith thou hast, have with thyself before God. Happy is he that judges not himself in that which he approves. “But he that doubts, if he eats, stands condemned: because it is not from faith. And all that is not from faith is sin.

Ver. 13. A practical exhortation summing up Paul’s teaching to the more scrupulous brethren, followed by another to the stronger brethren supporting the exhortation already given to them in Romans 14:1, 3,

10. Paul thus returns to the first matter of this chapter. Judge this: make no decision about your brother’s character, but make this decision about your own future conduct: same word in Romans 14:5; 1 Corinthians 2:2; 2 Corinthians 2:1. Stumbling-block: against which one may strike his foot: Romans 9:33; Leviticus 19:14.

Set a snare: same words in Judith v. 1: see under Romans 11:9. Resolve to do nothing by which your brother may be hindered or thrown down, or entrapped by the enemy.

V. 14. I am assured by the Lord Jesus-Perhaps by a particular revelation. That there is nothing-Neither flesh nor herbs. Unclean of itself-Unlawful under the gospel.

Verse 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus] After reasoning so long and so much with these contending parties on the subject of their mutual misunderstandings, without attempting to give any opinion, but merely to show them the folly and uncharitableness of their conduct, he now expresses himself fully, and tells them that nothing is unclean of itself, and that he has the inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ to say so; for to such an inspiration he must refer in such words as, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus. And yet, after having given them this decisive judgment, through respect to the tender, mistaken conscience of weak believers, he immediately adds: But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean; because if he act contrary to his conscience, he must necessarily contract guilt; for he who acts in opposition to his conscience in one case may do it in another, and thus even the plain declarations of the word of God may be set aside on things of the utmost importance, as well as the erroneous though well-intentioned dictates of his conscience, on matters which he makes of the last consequence; though others who are better taught know them to be indifferent.

It is dangerous to trifle with conscience, even when erroneous; it should be borne with and instructed; it must be won over, not taken by storm. Its feelings should be respected because they ever refer to God, and have their foundation in his fear. He who sins against his conscience in things which every one else knows to be indifferent, will soon do it in those things in which his salvation is most intimately concerned. It is a great blessing to have a well-informed conscience; it is a blessing to have a tender conscience; and even a sore conscience is infinitely better than none.

Verses 14-16. I know — By the light of reason; and am persuaded — Or assured; by the Lord Jesus — Probably by a particular revelation from him; that there is nothing — No kind of meat; unclean of itself — Or unlawful under the gospel. But to him that esteemeth any thing unclean — That in his conscience accounts it to be so; it is unclean — How indifferent soever it is in itself: and he will contract guilt before God, by allowing himself in it, whether it be to indulge his own taste, or to engage the favour of others, while he hath this inward apprehension of its being unlawful. The reader must observe here, that things clean in themselves, that is, things naturally fit for food, might be made unclean by the positive command of God, as many sorts of food were to the Jews. To such of them as believed that command to be still in force, these kinds of food were really unclean, and could not be eaten without sin. But if thy brother — Thy weak fellow- Christian; be grieved — And thereby cast down, or prejudiced against the Christian society, of which thou art a member; with thy meat — By thine eating that kind of meat, which he judges unlawful to be eaten; or if he be prevailed on by thy example to do that, the lawfulness of which he questions, and thereby his conscience be wounded; now walkest thou not charitably — Tenderly and condescendingly to his infirmity, as charity requires. Destroy not him with thy meat — Be not thou an occasion of sin, condemnation, and wrath to him through thy meat, thy rash and unkind use of such meat as he thinks prohibited; for whom Christ died — Not only submitted to smaller instances of self-denial, but endured all the agonies of crucifixion: do not value thy meat more than Christ valued his life. Here we see that a person, for whom Christ died, may be destroyed; a sure proof that Christ died for all, even for those that perish everlastingly. Let not then your goods — Your Christian liberty, a good which belongs to you; be evil spoken of — Be blamed for being the occasion of so much mischief to your fellow-creatures and fellow-Christians.

14. Unclean—In the Greek, common; a word derived from Old Testament use as a term antithetic to consecrated or set apart. The term being Jewish, might seem to imply that the weaker brethren were Jews. But in New Testament use it came to signify impure or profane in general. Thus in Hebrews 10:29, it is applied to the despised blood of Christ, and translated unholy; and in Revelation 21:27, it is applied to any thing too impure to enter heaven. It is the word which the apostle, with his Jewish training, would use to designate that impurity which Orientalism attributed to all matter.

Ver. 14. Am-persuaded: as in Romans 8:38; 15:14.

In the Lord: cp. Romans 9:1. Paul’s assurance comes from his inward union with Christ. Formerly, he was of another opinion.

Common: opposite to clean: cp. Romans 14:20; Acts 10:14, 15,

28. It denotes something forbidden to the sacred people.

Of itself: limitation to the assertion that nothing is common. It is further expounded in the words following, except etc. In spite of the above universal truth, if anyone eats what he believes to be defiling, he is defiled by it: for he has done what he believes to be wrong: cp. 1 Corinthians 8:7.

Paul here asserts plainly the absolute abrogation of the ceremonial law, of which distinction of food was a conspicuous feature and which forbad to touch things offered to idols: Lev. 11, Deuteronomy 7:25, 26. He thus re-echoes Mark 7:1-23; Acts 10:15.

V. 15. If thy brother is grieved-That is, wounded, led into sin. Destroy not him for whom Christ died-So we see, he for whom Christ died may be destroyed.

With thy meat-Do not value thy meat more than Christ valued his life.

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.] kata agaphn, 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, mh&ekeinon apollue, uper ou cristov apeqane. 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 apolluw, from which is derived that most significant name of the Devil, o Apolluwn, the DESTROYER, the great universal murderer of souls.

Verses 14-16. I know — By the light of reason; and am persuaded — Or assured; by the Lord Jesus — Probably by a particular revelation from him; that there is nothing — No kind of meat; unclean of itself — Or unlawful under the gospel. But to him that esteemeth any thing unclean — That in his conscience accounts it to be so; it is unclean — How indifferent soever it is in itself: and he will contract guilt before God, by allowing himself in it, whether it be to indulge his own taste, or to engage the favour of others, while he hath this inward apprehension of its being unlawful. The reader must observe here, that things clean in themselves, that is, things naturally fit for food, might be made unclean by the positive command of God, as many sorts of food were to the Jews. To such of them as believed that command to be still in force, these kinds of food were really unclean, and could not be eaten without sin. But if thy brother — Thy weak fellow- Christian; be grieved — And thereby cast down, or prejudiced against the Christian society, of which thou art a member; with thy meat — By thine eating that kind of meat, which he judges unlawful to be eaten; or if he be prevailed on by thy example to do that, the lawfulness of which he questions, and thereby his conscience be wounded; now walkest thou not charitably — Tenderly and condescendingly to his infirmity, as charity requires. Destroy not him with thy meat — Be not thou an occasion of sin, condemnation, and wrath to him through thy meat, thy rash and unkind use of such meat as he thinks prohibited; for whom Christ died — Not only submitted to smaller instances of self-denial, but endured all the agonies of crucifixion: do not value thy meat more than Christ valued his life. Here we see that a person, for whom Christ died, may be destroyed; a sure proof that Christ died for all, even for those that perish everlastingly. Let not then your goods — Your Christian liberty, a good which belongs to you; be evil spoken of — Be blamed for being the occasion of so much mischief to your fellow-creatures and fellow-Christians.

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. (1 Corinthians 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.

Ver. 15. For, if etc.: reason for the above exception, viz. because disregard of our brother’s liability to be defiled by that which is in itself clean is inconsistent with love, which is the essence of the new life in Christ.

Because of food: the meat eaten by the man of strong faith. Sorrowful: through spiritual injury. It is the forerunner of destruction. Walk: life looked upon as movement forward, as in Romans 6:4. According to love: love to our brethren guiding our steps. This guiding principle is rejected by those who, rather than give up a certain kind of food, i.e. meat offered to idols, so act as to injure their brethren. Do not etc.: a direct exhortation, based on the foregoing. By thy food: emphatic repetition: a contemptuous description of the price of our brother’s destruction.

Destroy: the ultimate result of making him sorrowful by causing him spiritual injury. All such injury tends to, and may end in, final ruin. See note on p. 87. {Romans 2:24} Paul charges the man who eats without taking into account the possible injurious effect of his eating, with spiritual murder of the man of weak faith. That spiritual injury may lead to destruction, is a very strong reason for avoiding whatever may cause injury.

On whose behalf Christ died: an absolute contrast to him who, rather than refrain from certain kinds of meat, so acts as to ruin a brother in Christ.

This verse implies clearly the possibility of the ultimate ruin of those for whom Christ died, of those who are now, as Paul assumes throughout, servants of Christ. If we were sure that God would not permit the injury occasioned by our conduct to go to the length of final ruin, we could not be kept back from it by fear of destroying him for whom Christ died. See note on Final Perseverance on p. 304. {Romans 11:24}

V. 16. Let not then your good and lawful liberty be evil spoken of-By being offensive to others.

Verse 16. Let not then your good be evil spoken of] Do not make such a use of your Christian liberty as to subject the Gospel itself to reproach. Whatsoever you do, do it in such a manner, spirit, and time, as to make it productive of the greatest possible good. There are many who have such an unhappy method of doing their good acts, as not only to do little or no good by them, but a great deal of evil. It requires much prudence and watchfulness to find out the proper time of performing even a good action.

Verses 14-16. I know — By the light of reason; and am persuaded — Or assured; by the Lord Jesus — Probably by a particular revelation from him; that there is nothing — No kind of meat; unclean of itself — Or unlawful under the gospel. But to him that esteemeth any thing unclean — That in his conscience accounts it to be so; it is unclean — How indifferent soever it is in itself: and he will contract guilt before God, by allowing himself in it, whether it be to indulge his own taste, or to engage the favour of others, while he hath this inward apprehension of its being unlawful. The reader must observe here, that things clean in themselves, that is, things naturally fit for food, might be made unclean by the positive command of God, as many sorts of food were to the Jews. To such of them as believed that command to be still in force, these kinds of food were really unclean, and could not be eaten without sin. But if thy brother — Thy weak fellow- Christian; be grieved — And thereby cast down, or prejudiced against the Christian society, of which thou art a member; with thy meat — By thine eating that kind of meat, which he judges unlawful to be eaten; or if he be prevailed on by thy example to do that, the lawfulness of which he questions, and thereby his conscience be wounded; now walkest thou not charitably — Tenderly and condescendingly to his infirmity, as charity requires. Destroy not him with thy meat — Be not thou an occasion of sin, condemnation, and wrath to him through thy meat, thy rash and unkind use of such meat as he thinks prohibited; for whom Christ died — Not only submitted to smaller instances of self-denial, but endured all the agonies of crucifixion: do not value thy meat more than Christ valued his life. Here we see that a person, for whom Christ died, may be destroyed; a sure proof that Christ died for all, even for those that perish everlastingly. Let not then your goods — Your Christian liberty, a good which belongs to you; be evil spoken of — Be blamed for being the occasion of so much mischief to your fellow-creatures and fellow-Christians.

16. Your good—Your right-doing as in eating meat, or your Christian integrity in any case. Evil spoken of—Endeavour not only to be and do right, but also so to appear clear and right that others may not misinterpret you to their own soul’s damage.

It, perhaps, often needs an apostle to apply and modify these principles wisely and apply them rightly. Generally, in this world, it is about as much as a man can do to be and do right, and then let his character in the long run speak for itself. It is often right for a man to say, “It is my business to be right, it is other folks’ business rightly to interpret me.” Yet there are other cases, like the present, where it is of primary importance to secure that others may not be harmed by misunderstanding our principles of action.

Ver. 16.-19. Great general principles bearing on the case before us. Your good thing: citizenship in the Kingdom of God, including the strong man’s faith. It is therefore fuller than “my liberty” in 1 Corinthians 10:29.

Evil-spoken-of: literally blasphemed, as in Romans 2:24; 3:8. Another reason for the above exhortation. If you cling, even at the risk of injury to your brother, to your undoubted right to eat what you like, you will lead the heathen to speak evil of that religion which is the common good of weak and strong. They will think that what you value most in the Gospel is that it breaks down the restrictions of Judaism and allows men to eat anything.

V. 17. For the kingdom of God-That is, true religion, does not consist in external observances. But in righteousness-The image of God stamped on the heart; the love of God and man, accompanied with the peace that passeth all understanding, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Verse 17. For the kingdom of God] That holy religion which God has sent from heaven, and which be intends to make the instrument of establishing a counterpart of the kingdom of glory among men: see Clarke on “Matthew 3:2”.

Is not meat and drink] It consists not in these outward and indifferent things. It neither particularly enjoins nor particularly forbids such. But righteousness] Pardon of sin, and holiness of heart and life. And peace] In the soul, from a sense of God’s mercy; peace regulating, ruling, and harmonizing the heart.

And joy in the Holy Ghost.] Solid spiritual happiness; a joy which springs from a clear sense of God’s mercy; the love of God being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. In a word, it is happiness brought into the soul by the Holy Spirit, and maintained there by the same influence. This is a genuine counterpart of heaven; righteousness without sin, PEACE without inward disturbance, JOY without any kind of mental agony or distressing fear. See Clarke’s note on “Matthew 3:2”.

Verses 17, 18. For the kingdom of God — Into which we enter by believing in Christ, and becoming his subjects, or which thereby enters into us, and is set up in our hearts, namely, true religion; is not — Does not consist in; meat and drink — Or in any ceremonial observances whatever; but righteousness — The righteousness of faith, love, and obedience; or justification, sanctification, and a holy conduct; see notes on Romans 5:21, and 10:4; peace — With God, peace of conscience, and tranquillity of mind, the consequence of these three branches of righteousness; and joy in the Holy Ghost — Joy arising from a sense of the forgiveness of our sins; (Psalms 32:1Psalm 32:1;) and of the favour of God; (Psalms 4:6Psalm 4:6, 7;) from a lively hope of the glory of God; (Romans 5:2;) from the testimony of a good conscience; (2 Corinthians 1:12;) and from communion with God, and an earnest of our future inheritance in our hearts; (Ephesians 1:14; Philippians 2:1.) He that in these things — In this righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; serveth Christ — Lives in obedience to his commands, and dedicates his soul and body, faculties and members, to serve his cause and interest in that line of life to which he believes God hath called him; is acceptable to God — Whether he abstains from the liberties in question, or allows himself in them; and approved of men — Namely, of truly wise and good men; how much soever the ignorant and wicked may censure such a man as an enthusiast, fanatic, or hypocrite, he will not want the approbation of those who are truly enlightened by the truth, and regenerated by the grace of God.

Ver. 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.

17. Kingdom of God—The divine dominion in the soul under Christ. Not meat—Its essence is not in distinctions of food. Righteousness—Of heart and life. Peace—With God, with our neighbour, with ourselves. Joy—The result of our righteousness and peace. The whole process is beautifully expanded in Romans 6:1-5. In the Holy Ghost—This clause is to be applied to each of the three.

Ver. 17. Further exposition of your good thing.

The Kingdom of God: the eternal kingdom to be set up at the return of Christ, of which we are already citizens: so 1 Corinthians 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:50; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:1, 18. It is a link connecting the teaching of Paul with the Gospels. Righteousness: doing what God approves, as in Romans 6:16, 20. Peace: harmony with our brethren.

Joy in the Holy Spirit: a joy wrought by the Spirit in those to whom He is the element of life and thought, by revealing, through the Gospel of the cross of Christ, God’s love towards them and His purposes of mercy for them: cp. Romans 5:2, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:6. It is contrasted with the pleasure of eating and drinking as a distinctive mark of the Kingdom of God.

V. 18. In these-Righteousness, peace, and joy. Men-Wise and good men.

Verse 18. For he that in these things] The man, whether Jew or Gentile, who in these things-righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, serveth Christ-acts according to his doctrine, is acceptable to God; for he has not only the form of godliness in thus serving Christ, but he has the power, the very spirit and essence of it, in having righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and therefore the whole frame of his mind, as well as his acts, must be acceptable to God.-And approved of men; for although religion may be persecuted, yet the righteous man, who is continually labouring for the public good, will be generally esteemed. This was a very common form of speech among the Jews; that he who was a conscientious observer of the law, was pleasing to God and approved of men. See several examples in Schoettgen.

Verses 17, 18. For the kingdom of God — Into which we enter by believing in Christ, and becoming his subjects, or which thereby enters into us, and is set up in our hearts, namely, true religion; is not — Does not consist in; meat and drink — Or in any ceremonial observances whatever; but righteousness — The righteousness of faith, love, and obedience; or justification, sanctification, and a holy conduct; see notes on Romans 5:21, and 10:4; peace — With God, peace of conscience, and tranquillity of mind, the consequence of these three branches of righteousness; and joy in the Holy Ghost — Joy arising from a sense of the forgiveness of our sins; (Psalms 32:1Psalm 32:1;) and of the favour of God; (Psalms 4:6Psalm 4:6, 7;) from a lively hope of the glory of God; (Romans 5:2;) from the testimony of a good conscience; (2 Corinthians 1:12;) and from communion with God, and an earnest of our future inheritance in our hearts; (Ephesians 1:14; Philippians 2:1.) He that in these things — In this righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; serveth Christ — Lives in obedience to his commands, and dedicates his soul and body, faculties and members, to serve his cause and interest in that line of life to which he believes God hath called him; is acceptable to God — Whether he abstains from the liberties in question, or allows himself in them; and approved of men — Namely, of truly wise and good men; how much soever the ignorant and wicked may censure such a man as an enthusiast, fanatic, or hypocrite, he will not want the approbation of those who are truly enlightened by the truth, and regenerated by the grace of God.

18. In these things—In the three traits of God’s kingdom in the heart just mentioned. Serveth Christ—In the triad of graces we observe a true universal morality, devoid of narrow ritualisms and dietetics; and yet we are truly serving Christ. Approved of men—The character and conduct of the man in whom the triad reigns really approve themselves to the consciences of men. The world may persecute because the person is specifically Christian; it may profess to despise his profession. But the true traits of the Christian character command the involuntary respect of men.

Ver. 18. Another general principle supporting that in Romans 14:17. In this: righteousness, peace, and joy, as inseparable elements of the one Christian character: cp. Galatians 5:22.

Serves Christ: the essence of the new life: Romans 14:4, 6-9. They who obey Christ by doing right, keeping peace with others, and rejoicing in the Holy Spirit are well-pleasing to God, and therefore citizens of His Kingdom. If so, we can waive our right to eat and drink what we like without losing the full privilege of citizens.

Approved: a good appearance after trial: cognate words in Romans 1:28; 2:18; 12:2; 5:4.

Approved by men: in contrast to evil-spoken-of. If you do right, you will have the intelligent respect of the heathen around: but if you claim to the full your right in the matter of food, without considering the effect on your weaker brethren, you will bring an evil report on that religion which is your chief good.

V. 19. Peace and edification are closely joined. Practical divinity tends equally to peace and to edification. Controversial divinity less directly tends to edification, although sometimes, as they of old, we cannot build without it, Nehemiah 4:17.

Verse 19. Let us therefore follow] Far from contending about meats, drinks, and festival times, in which it is not likely that the Jews and Gentiles will soon agree, let us endeavour to the utmost of our power to promote peace and unanimity, that we may be instrumental in edifying each other, in promoting religious knowledge and piety instead of being stumbling-blocks in each other’s way.

Verses 19-21. Let us therefore — In consistency with these certain and momentous truths; follow after the things which make for peace — Which tend to procure, preserve, and promote peace among the faithful; and things wherewith one may edify another, may build him up in faith and holiness. Observe, reader, peace and edification are closely connected: practical divinity tends equally to peace and edification. Controversial divinity less directly tends to edification, although sometimes we, as they of old, Nehemiah 4:17, cannot build without it. For meat — For so small a matter as the eating a little meat; or, for the use of any indifferent thing, destroy not the work of God — That work which he builds in the soul by faith, and in the church by concord: do nothing toward destroying it. All things indeed are pure — All meats are, in themselves, lawful; but it, the eating what a person thinks to be prohibited, is evil, sinful, and hurtful, to that man who eateth with offence — So as to offend another thereby, or contrary to the dictates of his own conscience, and insnaring to the consciences of others, And in this view I may affirm, It is good, pleasing to God, and profitable for edification, and therefore every Christian’s duty, neither to eat flesh, &c. — Not only to abstain from what is forbidden in the law of Moses, but from every other thing which gives offence; whereby thy brother stumbleth — By imitating thee against his conscience, contrary to righteousness; or is offended at what thou dost to the loss of his peace; or is made weak, hesitating between imitation and abhorrence, to the loss of that joy in the Lord, which was his strength. Macknight interprets the clause rather differently, thus: “The first of these words, proskoptei, stumbleth, (which signifies to dash one’s foot against something without falling, or being much hurt,) expresses the case of a person who, being tempted to commit sin, yields a little to the temptation, but recovers himself: the second, skandalizetai, from skazw, to halt, (meaning to fall and be lamed by stumbling,) expresses the case of one who, through temptation, actually commits sin contrary to his knowledge and conviction: the third, asqenei, (which signifies to be weakened in consequence of such a fall,) expresses the condition of a person who, by sinning, hath his piety so weakened, that he is in danger of apostatizing.”

19. Therefore—Since religion consists not in meats, but in spiritual graces. Follow… peace—By neither insisting on meats, nor stiffly refusing to avoid meats. Edify—Build up; a metaphor borrowed from architecture. The Christian is a true temple of God. Beware lest instead of building him up we tear him down.

Ver. 19. Practical inference from Romans 14:17, 18. The things of peace: all that tends to harmony.

Pursue: as in Romans 12:13: cp. Hebrews 12:14; 1 Corinthians 14:1.

Edification: literally building-up: so Romans 15:2; 1 Corinthians 14:3, 5, 12, 26; Ephesians 4:12, 16, 29. This common metaphor represents the Church and the spiritual life as a building in process of erection: cp. Romans 15:20; 1 Corinthians 3:9-12; Ephesians 2:21, 22. The building makes most progress in those who are at peace with each other. Consequently they who pursue mutual edification will pursue peace.

V. 20. The work of God-Which he builds in the soul by faith, and in the church by concord.

It is evil to that man who eateth with offence-So as to offend another thereby.

Verse 20. For meat destroy not the work of God] Do not hinder the progress of the Gospel either in your own souls or in those of others, by contending about lawful or unlawful meats. And do not destroy the soul of thy Christian brother, Romans 14:15, by offending him so as to induce him to apostatize.

All things indeed are pure] This is a repetition of the sentiment delivered, Romans 14:14, in different words. Nothing that is proper for aliment is unlawful to be eaten; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence-the man who either eats contrary to his own conscience, or so as to grieve and stumble another, does an evil act; and however lawful the thing may be in itself, his conduct does not please God.

Verses 19-21. Let us therefore — In consistency with these certain and momentous truths; follow after the things which make for peace — Which tend to procure, preserve, and promote peace among the faithful; and things wherewith one may edify another, may build him up in faith and holiness. Observe, reader, peace and edification are closely connected: practical divinity tends equally to peace and edification. Controversial divinity less directly tends to edification, although sometimes we, as they of old, Nehemiah 4:17, cannot build without it. For meat — For so small a matter as the eating a little meat; or, for the use of any indifferent thing, destroy not the work of God — That work which he builds in the soul by faith, and in the church by concord: do nothing toward destroying it. All things indeed are pure — All meats are, in themselves, lawful; but it, the eating what a person thinks to be prohibited, is evil, sinful, and hurtful, to that man who eateth with offence — So as to offend another thereby, or contrary to the dictates of his own conscience, and insnaring to the consciences of others, And in this view I may affirm, It is good, pleasing to God, and profitable for edification, and therefore every Christian’s duty, neither to eat flesh, &c. — Not only to abstain from what is forbidden in the law of Moses, but from every other thing which gives offence; whereby thy brother stumbleth — By imitating thee against his conscience, contrary to righteousness; or is offended at what thou dost to the loss of his peace; or is made weak, hesitating between imitation and abhorrence, to the loss of that joy in the Lord, which was his strength. Macknight interprets the clause rather differently, thus: “The first of these words, proskoptei, stumbleth, (which signifies to dash one’s foot against something without falling, or being much hurt,) expresses the case of a person who, being tempted to commit sin, yields a little to the temptation, but recovers himself: the second, skandalizetai, from skazw, to halt, (meaning to fall and be lamed by stumbling,) expresses the case of one who, through temptation, actually commits sin contrary to his knowledge and conviction: the third, asqenei, (which signifies to be weakened in consequence of such a fall,) expresses the condition of a person who, by sinning, hath his piety so weakened, that he is in danger of apostatizing.”

20. The work of God—The Christian who, however weak, is God’s building, and so must not be destroyed or demolished. All… pure—Free alike from that impurity which Orientalism ascribes to all matter, (note on Acts 8:9;) from the old patriarchal and Mosaic distinction of certain things as unclean, and from any imaginary contamination from idols which are just nothing at all in the world. It is evil—Literally, evil to the man. Although all things are pure from evil in themselves, yet there is evil to the man who eats with damage to his brother.

Ver. 20.-21. Paul now returns to the specific matter in hand, after stating great principles which ought to rule our whole conduct.

Because of food: conspicuous repetition of the chief point in hand. Pull-down: same word in 2 Corinthians 5:1; Galatians 2:18: it keeps before us the metaphor of a building.

Do not, for a piece of food, put down what God has built: cp. 1 Corinthians 3:17. This implies that God sometimes permits men, not only to hinder, but to undo, His spiritual work.

All things clean: parallel to Romans 14:14.

But it is evil etc.: an exception to the foregoing universal assertion. Eats with stumbling: whose eating occasions, and is thus accompanied by, the spiritual fall of another or of himself. Such eating is a stone against which he or others strike their foot; and is therefore evil. On the other hand, it is good even to go so far as not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor to take anything else, if they hinder or ensnare our brother or weaken his spiritual life.

Wine: offered to idols: cp. Deuteronomy 32:38; Isaiah 57:6. The danger referred to arises from the force of example; as explained in 1 Corinthians 8:10. What we do, others will do, even though they believe it to be wrong, because they see us do it. Thus our conduct, in itself right, will lead to what in their case is wrong. Our love to our brethren binds us to refrain from such action.

On the bearing of this principle on total abstinence from intoxicants, see my note under 1 Corinthians 8:13.

The evidence for and against the words or is ensnared or is weak is equally balanced. Tischendorf and Westcott omit them; as do the Revisers. But these last note them in the margin as added by “many ancient authorities.” Tregelles inserts them, but expresses doubt in his margin. They add nothing to the sense.

V. 21. Thy brother stumbleth-By imitating thee against his conscience, contrary to righteousness.

Or is offended-At what thou doest to the loss of his peace. Or made weak-Hesitating between imitation and abhorrence, to the loss of that joy in the Lord which was his strength.

Verse 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, &c.] The spirit and self-denying principles of the Gospel teach us, that we should not only avoid every thing in eating or drinking which may be an occasion of offence or apostasy to our brethren, but even to lay down our lives for them should it be necessary.

Whereby thy brother stumbleth] proskoptei, from prov, against, and koptw, to strike, to hit the foot against a stone in walking, so as to halt, and be impeded in one’s journey. It here means, spiritually, any thing by which a man is so perplexed in his mind as to be prevented from making due progress in the Divine life. Any thing by which he is caused to halt, to be undecisive, and undetermined; and under such an influence no man has ever yet grown in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Or is offended] h skandalizetai, from skandalon, a

stumbling-block; any thing by which a person is caused to fall, especially into a snare, trap, or gin. Originally the word signified the piece of wood or key in a trap, which being trodden on caused the animal to fall into a pit, or the trap to close upon him. In the New Testament it generally refers to total apostasy from the Christian religion; and this appears to be its meaning in this place.

Or is made weak.] h asqenei, from a, negative, and sqenov, strength; without mental vigour; without power sufficiently to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, lawful and unlawful. To get under the dominion of an erroneous conscience, so as to judge that to be evil or unlawful which is not so. The two last terms are omitted by two excellent MSS. (the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Ephraim,) by the Syriac of Erpen, the Coptic and the Ethiopic, and by some of the primitive fathers. It is very likely that they were added by some early hand by way of illustration. Griesbach has left them in the text with a note of doubtfulness.

Verses 19-21. Let us therefore — In consistency with these certain and momentous truths; follow after the things which make for peace — Which tend to procure, preserve, and promote peace among the faithful; and things wherewith one may edify another, may build him up in faith and holiness. Observe, reader, peace and edification are closely connected: practical divinity tends equally to peace and edification. Controversial divinity less directly tends to edification, although sometimes we, as they of old, Nehemiah 4:17, cannot build without it. For meat — For so small a matter as the eating a little meat; or, for the use of any indifferent thing, destroy not the work of God — That work which he builds in the soul by faith, and in the church by concord: do nothing toward destroying it. All things indeed are pure — All meats are, in themselves, lawful; but it, the eating what a person thinks to be prohibited, is evil, sinful, and hurtful, to that man who eateth with offence — So as to offend another thereby, or contrary to the dictates of his own conscience, and insnaring to the consciences of others, And in this view I may affirm, It is good, pleasing to God, and profitable for edification, and therefore every Christian’s duty, neither to eat flesh, &c. — Not only to abstain from what is forbidden in the law of Moses, but from every other thing which gives offence; whereby thy brother stumbleth — By imitating thee against his conscience, contrary to righteousness; or is offended at what thou dost to the loss of his peace; or is made weak, hesitating between imitation and abhorrence, to the loss of that joy in the Lord, which was his strength. Macknight interprets the clause rather differently, thus: “The first of these words, proskoptei, stumbleth, (which signifies to dash one’s foot against something without falling, or being much hurt,) expresses the case of a person who, being tempted to commit sin, yields a little to the temptation, but recovers himself: the second, skandalizetai, from skazw, to halt, (meaning to fall and be lamed by stumbling,) expresses the case of one who, through temptation, actually commits sin contrary to his knowledge and conviction: the third, asqenei, (which signifies to be weakened in consequence of such a fall,) expresses the condition of a person who, by sinning, hath his piety so weakened, that he is in danger of apostatizing.”

21. Any thing—The italic words are of course supplied by the translator. The complete sense requires nor to do any thing; for the apostle means to generalize the precept, Do nothing that may ruin the soul of thy brother. We have already said that it almost needs an apostle’s wisdom correctly to apply the apostle’s maxim.

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 (1 Timothy 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.

Ver. 20.-21. Paul now returns to the specific matter in hand, after stating great principles which ought to rule our whole conduct.

Because of food: conspicuous repetition of the chief point in hand. Pull-down: same word in 2 Corinthians 5:1; Galatians 2:18: it keeps before us the metaphor of a building.

Do not, for a piece of food, put down what God has built: cp. 1 Corinthians 3:17. This implies that God sometimes permits men, not only to hinder, but to undo, His spiritual work.

All things clean: parallel to Romans 14:14.

But it is evil etc.: an exception to the foregoing universal assertion. Eats with stumbling: whose eating occasions, and is thus accompanied by, the spiritual fall of another or of himself. Such eating is a stone against which he or others strike their foot; and is therefore evil. On the other hand, it is good even to go so far as not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor to take anything else, if they hinder or ensnare our brother or weaken his spiritual life.

Wine: offered to idols: cp. Deuteronomy 32:38; Isaiah 57:6. The danger referred to arises from the force of example; as explained in 1 Corinthians 8:10. What we do, others will do, even though they believe it to be wrong, because they see us do it. Thus our conduct, in itself right, will lead to what in their case is wrong. Our love to our brethren binds us to refrain from such action.

On the bearing of this principle on total abstinence from intoxicants, see my note under 1 Corinthians 8:13.

The evidence for and against the words or is ensnared or is weak is equally balanced. Tischendorf and Westcott omit them; as do the Revisers. But these last note them in the margin as added by “many ancient authorities.” Tregelles inserts them, but expresses doubt in his margin. They add nothing to the sense.

V. 22. Hast thou faith-That all things are pure?

Have it to thyself before God-In circumstances like these, keep it to thyself, and do not offend others by it.

Happy is he that condemneth not himself-By an improper use of even innocent things! and happy he who is free from a doubting conscience! He that has this may allow the thing, yet condemn himself for it.

Verse 22. Hast thou faith?] The term faith seems to signify in this place a full persuasion in a man’s mind that he is right, that what he does is lawful, and has the approbation of God and his conscience. Dr. Taylor has a judicious note on this passage. “There is no necessity,” says he, “ for reading the first clause interrogatively; and it seems to be more agreeable to the structure of the Greek to render it, Thou hast faith; as if he had said: ‘I own thou hast a right persuasion.’ Farther, there is an anadiplosis in eceiv, and ece the first simply signifies thou hast, the latter, hold fast. Thou hast a right persuasion concerning thy Christian liberty; and I advise thee to hold that persuasion steadfastly, with respect to thyself in the sight of God. ecw have, has frequently this emphatical signification. See Matthew 25:29, &c.”

Happy is he that condemneth not, &c.] That man only can enjoy peace of conscience who acts according to the full persuasion which God has given him of the lawfulness of his conduct: whereas he must be miserable who allows himself in the practice of any thing for which his conscience upbraids and accuses him. This is a most excellent maxim, and every genuine Christian should be careful to try every part of his conduct by it. If a man have not peace in his own bosom, he cannot be happy; and no man can have peace who sins against his conscience. If a man’s passions or appetite allow or instigate him to a particular thing, let him take good heed that his conscience approve what his passions allow, and that he live not the subject of continual self-condemnation and reproach. Even the man who has the too scrupulous conscience had better, in such matters as are in question, obey its erroneous dictates than violate this moral feeling, and live only to condemn the actions he is constantly performing.

Verses 22, 23. Hast thou faith — That these things are lawful? Have it to thyself, before God — In circumstances like these keep it to thyself, and do not offend others by it. Happy is he that condemneth not himself — For using his liberty in an undue manner, respecting those things which he practises, or judges lawful in themselves. Or, as others understand the apostle, that condemneth not himself by an improper use of even innocent things. And happy is he who is free from a doubting conscience, which he that hath may allow the action which he does, and yet condemn himself for it, and thereby make himself miserable. And he that doubteth — Namely, whether it be lawful for him to eat, (or do any other thing,) or not, is damned — Or condemned, contracts guilt and wounds his conscience; if he eat — That which he doubts of, or does that the lawfulness of which he questions; because he eateth not of faith — With a persuasion of its lawfulness. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin — Whatever a man does without a full persuasion that it is lawful, it is sin to him. The reader will observe that here, as in verse 22, faith does not signify the believing in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel, but a persuasion that what one doth is lawful. And thus understood, the apostle’s declaration is perfectly just in every case; because if a man acts without that persuasion, he acts without any principle of virtue, being guided merely by his own inclinations. And therefore, although what he doth may, in some instances, be materially right, it is sin in the sight of God, as being done without a sense of duty. From this it follows, that if a person acts contrary to his conscience in anything, he is exceedingly blameable.

22. Hast thou faith?—We prefer the different reading which admits the following rendering: What faith thou hast, have to thyself before God. Do not protrude it out upon thy brother to his damage. By faith we here by no means understand, with Dr. Hodge, “a firm persuasion of the lawfulness of all kinds of meat.” Such a variance in interpreting this most important word from its uniform meaning throughout this epistle is arbitrary and dangerous. We strictly understand it to be justifying faith in Christ; that faith which the weakling had, but in which he was obscure. Now what stronger, clearer faith thou hast in Christ alone, by which thou seest that these scruples are no proper part of Christianity, so have it to thyself and God as to hurt nobody else. Condemneth… alloweth—You in your clear faith in Christ can eat meats. Happy is your case; you are not self-condemned in your liberal allowance. There is a harmony between your faith, your conscience, and your conduct. Not so your weak brother, as the next verse shows.

Ver. 22.-23. An appeal to the man who has faith, in support of the foregoing principle.

Have with thyself: do not announce it by claiming all the privileges it confers. For faith is in itself so good that we can afford to forgo some points of its outward manifestation and be satisfied to enjoy it in our own hearts before God.

Happy is he etc.: proof how good faith is. A man of weak faith, even when he has decided that an action is right, is uncertain in his decision; and is ever sitting in judgment on himself and asking whether he is doing right. Consequently he is full of moral doubt and weakness. But the man who has obtained by faith a firm hold of God’s revealed will forms a stedfast decision and dismisses all doubt. He does what he approves without judging himself.

But he that doubts etc.: further proof of the value of faith by description of the man weak in faith.

If he eats, he is condemned by God to suffer spiritual loss, because his conduct does not spring from faith, i.e. from an assurance that he is doing right.

And all etc.: a universal truth explaining why he that does that about which he stands in doubt is condemned. Such action does not flow from loyalty to Christ, and therefore partakes of the nature of sin. This verse is a warning to the man of weak faith that so long as he doubts he is bound to abstain.

From this section we learn that we may, without design and without knowing it, not only injure but destroy those who are now servants of Christ; and may do this by actions in themselves lawful, and even by claiming the rights which the Gospel has given us. Paul’s argument is a development, in view of these solemn truths, of the great commandment quoted in Romans 13:9. A link of connection is found in Romans 14:15, “not according to love.” If any act of ours is likely to injure a brother, we are bound, by the law of love, to refrain from it. This obligation, Paul strengthens, by reminding us that Christ died for this weak brother; that men are watching our conduct, and will judge us accordingly; that, to surrender our right to do as we like, by no means implies a surrender of our rights as citizens of the Kingdom; and that our faith gives us inward advantages over the weak brother so great that we can afford to make this minor sacrifice for his good. For these reasons we are bound to consider in all we do, not merely whether our actions are right in themselves, but what will be their effect upon others. This great principle has a wide and various bearing on the details of every-day life. This principle admits of what seems to be an exception but is really a further development. It often happens that an action is an occasion of harm to one man and a means of good to another. For example, in the case before us, Paul would have to consider whether abstinence from meat would lessen his bodily strength, and thus inflict on those for whom he lived and worked an injury greater than that occasioned to the weaker brother by the example of Paul eating meat. We must ask whether on the whole an action is likely to do more good or harm; and act accordingly. And thus, though we shall sometimes do that which may occasion injury to some of our brethren, we shall always act from the same divine principle of universal love. Under 1 Corinthians 11:1, I have given a summary of a similar argument on the same subject.

Some MSS., versions, and fathers, put after Romans 14:23 the words of Romans 16:25-27: see my note.

V. 23. Because it is not of faith-He does not believe it lawful and, in all these cases,

whatsoever is not of faith is sin-Whatever a man does without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, it is sin to him.

Verse 23. And he that doubteth] This verse is a necessary part of the preceding, and should be read thus: But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. The meaning is sufficiently plain. He that feeds on any kind of meats prohibited by the Mosaic law, with the persuasion in his mind that he may be wrong in so doing, is condemned by his conscience for doing that which he has reason to think God has forbidden.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.] Whatever he does, without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, (see Romans 14:22) is to him sin; for he does it under a conviction that he may be wrong in so doing. Therefore, if he makes a distinction in his own conscience between different kinds of meats, and yet eats of all indifferently, he is a sinner before God; because he eats either through false shame, base compliance, or an unbridled appetite; and any of these is in itself a sin against the sincerity, ingenuousness, and self-denying principles of the Gospel of Christ. Some think that these words have a more extensive signification, and that they apply to all who have not true religion, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; every work of such persons being sinful in the sight of a holy God, because it does not proceed from a pure motive. On this ground our Church says, Art. xiii, “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they are not of faith in Jesus Christ; yes, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.” To this we may add, that without faith it is impossible to please God; every thing is wrong where this principle is wanting.

There are few readers who have not remarked that the last three verses of this epistle (Romans 16:25-27) appear to stand in their present place without any obvious connection; and apparently after the epistle is concluded. And it is well known to critics, that two MSS. in uncial letters, the Cod. A and I, with upwards of 100 others, together with the Slavonic, the later Syriac and Arabic, add those verses at the end of the fourteenth chapter. The transposition is acknowledged by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Œcumenius, Theophylact, Theodulus, Damascenus, and Tertullian; see Wetstein. Griesbach inserts them at the end of this chapter as their proper place; and most learned men approve of this transposition. It may be necessary to repeat the words here that the reader may see with what propriety they connect with the subject which terminates the fourteenth chapter as it now stands.

Romans 14:23: And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 16:25: Now, to him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, (according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, Romans 16:26: But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith;)

Romans 16:27: To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Romans 15:1: We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, &c.

These words certainly connect better with the close of the fourteenth chapter and the beginning of the fifteenth than they do with the conclusion of the sixteenth, where they are now generally found; but I shall defer my observations upon them till I come to that place, with only this remark, that the stablishing mentioned Romans 16:25, corresponds well with the doubting, Romans 14:23, and indeed the whole matter of these verses agrees so well with the subject so largely handled in the preceding chapter, that there can be very little doubt of their being in their proper place if joined to the end of this chapter, as they are in the preceding MSS. and versions.

ROMANS

Verses 22, 23. Hast thou faith — That these things are lawful? Have it to thyself, before God — In circumstances like these keep it to thyself, and do not offend others by it. Happy is he that condemneth not himself — For using his liberty in an undue manner, respecting those things which he practises, or judges lawful in themselves. Or, as others understand the apostle, that condemneth not himself by an improper use of even innocent things. And happy is he who is free from a doubting conscience, which he that hath may allow the action which he does, and yet condemn himself for it, and thereby make himself miserable. And he that doubteth — Namely, whether it be lawful for him to eat, (or do any other thing,) or not, is damned — Or condemned, contracts guilt and wounds his conscience; if he eat — That which he doubts of, or does that the lawfulness of which he questions; because he eateth not of faith — With a persuasion of its lawfulness. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin — Whatever a man does without a full persuasion that it is lawful, it is sin to him. The reader will observe that here, as in verse 22, faith does not signify the believing in Christ, and in the truths and promises of his gospel, but a persuasion that what one doth is lawful. And thus understood, the apostle’s declaration is perfectly just in every case; because if a man acts without that persuasion, he acts without any principle of virtue, being guided merely by his own inclinations. And therefore, although what he doth may, in some instances, be materially right, it is sin in the sight of God, as being done without a sense of duty. From this it follows, that if a person acts contrary to his conscience in anything, he is exceedingly blameable.

Ver. 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.

23. And—Rather, but. He whose obscure faith in Christ allows him to believe meat a criminal matter, and so both doubts and eats, is not happy, but self-condemned. His conscience and conduct are at war, and he is wretched, though not perhaps as bad as he thinks himself. Yet his case is bad. He has intended to do wrong. And even though the objective act was not intrinsically wrong, its rightness was an accident; the unhappy man has really in his heart purposed to violate the law of right. Dr. Hodge pertinently says, “It is wrong to do any thing which we think to be wrong. The converse of this proposition is not true. It is not always right to do what we think to be right.” Damned—Is here used in its old English sense, condemned; that is, condemned by himself and condemned by God; not necessarily eternally ruined. Eateth not of faith—He eats not according to the clear free faith of the strong man, for that would have banished his doubt and reconciled his conscience and conduct. He eats not according to his own feeble faith, for that authorizes the doubt by which he is self-condemned. He acts from no Christian or moral faith or principle at all, but from an unholy impulse. Not of faith is sin—The Christian’s whole true life is a life of faith which faith authorizes every innocent act. Whatever comes not from that is transgression. The Augustinian argument (noticed by Alford, and in Lange’s Commentary on the passage) drawn from this clause, showing the non-salvability of infidels and heathen, has no force. We do not, nevertheless, obviate it by the methods of the commentators just named. The faith described in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews was a faith of those who never knew Christ, yet was a faith intrinsically equivalent to a faith in Christ. Faith, through all the dispensation of mankind, (and in some sense every man is by himself a dispensation,) is intrinsically and essentially the same principle. (See note on Romans 2:6.) And whatever is not of this faith is sin, and whose hath not this faith is eternally damned.

There is a formidable authority of manuscripts in favour of inserting here the doxology which stands at the end of the Epistle. This is obviously a most unsuitable place, as there is nothing here in the train of thought to awaken so lofty a strain. The most natural solution of the fact of its being here placed is that the customary reading of the Epistle in the Churches (see page 5) ended here, (the remainder of the Epistle being held of a less edifying character and so not read,) with the closing doxology superadded. A few manuscripts have the doxology in both places, and a few others entirely omit it.

Upon the fact of its prevalent insertion here, Renan, following in the train of adverse German criticism, founds the assumption that the Epistle properly terminates here, and that the after parts are but partially genuine. But as he feels obliged to admit the genuineness of several passages in this portion of the Epistle, his picking and culling other parts for opinions become so capricious and artificial that his whole criticism breaks down. He furnishes a theory of his own, that Romans is truly an Encyclical Epistle. That is, the body of it was written for and sent to several of the principal Churches, with different Introduction and Conclusion in each, suited to its particular Church, and that “the editors” have appended several different conclusions to the existing copy. But these “editors,” we have given reason to believe, are imaginary beings. (See p. 5.) If they existed soon after the writing of the Epistle, both they and their readers would have seen the mistake; if long after, they could never have called in the various copies scattered through the Christian world, so but that a variety of introductions as well as terminations would have been extant at the present day.

Renan says there are properly four endings of the Epistle, namely, at Romans 15:33; 16:20; 16:24; and 16:27. But Renan is too parsimonious. If a doxology or a benediction closing up a topic, with, perhaps, an Amen, is an ending of the Epistle, there are no less than seven such endings. And this calls to view the fact that Romans is not only the most climactic and triumphal, (see note Romans 8:39,) but the most doxological of all Paul’s Epistles. God the Creator wakes a doxology at Romans 1:25; Christ the Redeemer at Romans 9:5; God the divine Governor at Romans 11:36. A benediction upon his entire audience of Roman readers is pronounced at Romans 15:33; upon his circle of saluted brethren at Romans 16:20; and upon the double circle of saluters and saluted at Romans 16:24. Then, with all suitableness, the whole is closed with the grand doxology of Romans 16:26, 27. This survey of the whole entirely dispenses with all the theories of “separate pieces of parchment,” “various times of writing,” “fourfold endings,” “encyclical epistles,” etc., which commentators, critics, and sceptics have so needlessly invented.

Ver. 22.-23. An appeal to the man who has faith, in support of the foregoing principle.

Have with thyself: do not announce it by claiming all the privileges it confers. For faith is in itself so good that we can afford to forgo some points of its outward manifestation and be satisfied to enjoy it in our own hearts before God.

Happy is he etc.: proof how good faith is. A man of weak faith, even when he has decided that an action is right, is uncertain in his decision; and is ever sitting in judgment on himself and asking whether he is doing right. Consequently he is full of moral doubt and weakness. But the man who has obtained by faith a firm hold of God’s revealed will forms a stedfast decision and dismisses all doubt. He does what he approves without judging himself.

But he that doubts etc.: further proof of the value of faith by description of the man weak in faith.

If he eats, he is condemned by God to suffer spiritual loss, because his conduct does not spring from faith, i.e. from an assurance that he is doing right.

And all etc.: a universal truth explaining why he that does that about which he stands in doubt is condemned. Such action does not flow from loyalty to Christ, and therefore partakes of the nature of sin. This verse is a warning to the man of weak faith that so long as he doubts he is bound to abstain.

From this section we learn that we may, without design and without knowing it, not only injure but destroy those who are now servants of Christ; and may do this by actions in themselves lawful, and even by claiming the rights which the Gospel has given us. Paul’s argument is a development, in view of these solemn truths, of the great commandment quoted in Romans 13:9. A link of connection is found in Romans 14:15, “not according to love.” If any act of ours is likely to injure a brother, we are bound, by the law of love, to refrain from it. This obligation, Paul strengthens, by reminding us that Christ died for this weak brother; that men are watching our conduct, and will judge us accordingly; that, to surrender our right to do as we like, by no means implies a surrender of our rights as citizens of the Kingdom; and that our faith gives us inward advantages over the weak brother so great that we can afford to make this minor sacrifice for his good. For these reasons we are bound to consider in all we do, not merely whether our actions are right in themselves, but what will be their effect upon others. This great principle has a wide and various bearing on the details of every-day life. This principle admits of what seems to be an exception but is really a further development. It often happens that an action is an occasion of harm to one man and a means of good to another. For example, in the case before us, Paul would have to consider whether abstinence from meat would lessen his bodily strength, and thus inflict on those for whom he lived and worked an injury greater than that occasioned to the weaker brother by the example of Paul eating meat. We must ask whether on the whole an action is likely to do more good or harm; and act accordingly. And thus, though we shall sometimes do that which may occasion injury to some of our brethren, we shall always act from the same divine principle of universal love. Under 1 Corinthians 11:1, I have given a summary of a similar argument on the same subject.

Some MSS., versions, and fathers, put after Romans 14:23 the words of Romans 16:25-27: see my note.