Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 14:1 - 14:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
ON FORBEARANCE TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE SCRUPULOUS
14:1-15:13. Receive a scrupulous Christian cordially. Do not be continually condemning him. Some of you have grasped the full meaning of Christian faith, others whose conscience is too tender lay undue stress on particular practices, on rules as to food or the observance of certain days. Do not you whose faith is more robust despise such scruples; nor should they be censorious (vv. 1-5).
Every one should make up his own mind. These things are indifferent in themselves. Only whatever a man does he must look to Christ. In life and death we are all His, whose death and resurrection have made him Lord of all. To Him as to no one else shall we be called upon to give account (vv. 6-12).
We must avoid censoriousness. But equally must we avoid placing obstacles before a fellow-Christian. I believe firmly that nothing is harmful in itself, but it becomes so to the person who considers it harmful. The obligation of love and charity is paramount. Meats are secondary things. Let us have an eye to peace and mutual help. It is not worth while for the sake of a little meat to undo God’s work in a brother’s soul. Far better abstain from flesh and wine altogether (vv. 13-21).
Keep the robuster faith with which you are blest to yourself and God. To hesitate and then eat is to incur guilt; for it is not prompted by strong faith (vv. 22, 23).
This rule of forbearance applies to all classes of the community. The strong should bear the scruples of the weak. We should not seek our own good, but that of others; following the example of Christ as expounded to us in the Scriptures; those Scriptures which were written for our encouragement and consolation. May God, from whom this encouragement comes, grant you all—weak and strong, Jew and Gentile—to be of one mind, uniting in the praise of God (15:1-7).
For Christ has received you all alike. To both Jew and Gentile He has a special mission. To the Jews to exhibit God’s veracity, to the Gentiles to reveal His mercy; that Gentile might unite with Jew, as Psalmist and Prophet foretold, in hymns of praise to the glory of God. May God the giver of hope send it richly upon you (vv. 8-13).
14:1-15:13. The Apostle now passes on to a further point; the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples. The subject is one which naturally connects itself with what we have seen to be the leading thought which underlies these concluding chapters, and in fact the whole Epistle, namely, the peace and unity of the Church, and may have been immediately suggested by the words just preceding: St. Paul has been condemning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way. As Augustine points out, he condemns and instructs more openly the ‘strong’ who can bear it, while indirectly showing the error of the ‘weak.’ The arguments throughout are, as we shall see, perfectly general, and the principles applied those characteristic of the moral teaching of the Epistle—the freedom of Christian faith, the comprehensiveness of Christian charity and that duty of peace and unity on which St. Paul never wearies of insisting.
Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v.15) refers to ver. 14:10, and Origen (Comm. in Rom. x.43, Lomm. vii. p. 453) to ver. 23. Of Marcion’s use of the rest of the chapter we know nothing. On chaps. 15, 16, see Introduction, §9.
1. τνδ ἀθνῦτ τ πσε: cf. Rom_4:19; 1Co_8:7, 1Co_8:9, 1Co_8:10, 1Co_8:11; 1Co_9:22. ‘Weakness in faith,’ means an inadequate grasp of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.
πολμάεθ, ‘receive into full Christian intercourse and fellowship.’ The word is used (1) of God receiving or helping man: Psa_26 (27) 10 ὁπτρμυκὶἡμτρμυἐκτλπνμ, ὁδ κρο ποεάεόμ: so in ver. 3 below and in Clem. Rom. 49:6 ἐ ἀάῃποεάεοἡᾶ ὁδσόη. But (2) it is also used of men receiving others into fellowship or companionship: 2 Macc. 8:1 τὺ μμνκτςἐ τ Ἰυασῷπολβμνισνγγνεςἑαιχλος These two uses are combined in 15:7 ‘All whom Christ has willed to receive into the Christian community, whether they be Jews or Greeks, circumcised or uncircumcised, every Christian ought to be willing to receive as brothers.’
μ εςδαρσι δαοιμν ‘but not to pass judgements on their thoughts.’ Receive them as members of the Christian community, but do not let them find that they have been merely received into a society in which their somewhat too scrupulous thoughts are perpetually being condemned. δαρσι, from δαρν to ‘judge,’ ‘decide,’ ‘distinguish,’ means the expression of judgements or opinions, as Heb_5:14 ‘judgement of good or evil,’ 1Co_12:10 ‘judgement or discernment of spirits.’ δαοιμνmeans ‘thoughts,’ often, but not necessarily, with the idea of doubt, hesitation (Luk_24:38), disputes (Php_2:14; 1Ti_2:8), or generally of perverse self-willed speculations. The above interpretation of δαρσι is that of most commentators (Mey.-W. Oltr. Va.) and is most in accordance with usage. An equally good sense could be gained by translating (with Lips.) ‘not so as to raise doubts in his mind,’ or (with Gif.) ‘not unto discussions of doubts’; but neither interpretation can be so well supported.
2. The Apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring, and then (ver. 3) he gives his commands to both sides.
ὄ μν̣̣̣ὁδ ἀθνν With the variation in construction cf. 1Co_12:8-10; Mar_4:4; Luk_8:5. The second ὁis not for ὃ, but is to be taken with ἀθνν
πσεε, ‘hath faith to eat all things’; his faith, i.e. his grasp and hold of the Christian spirit, is so strong that he recognizes how indifferent all such matters in themselves really are.
λχν ἐθε, ‘abstains from all flesh meat and eats only vegetables.’ Most commentators have assumed that St. Paul is describing the practice of some definite party in the Roman community and have discussed, with great divergence of opinion, the motive of such a practice. But St. Paul is writing quite generally, and is merely selecting a typical instance to balance the first. He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong faith, who has grasped the full meaning of his Christianity; and on the other side, one who is, as would generally be admitted, over-scrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of scrupulousness in food which might occur. To both these classes he gives the command of forbearance, and what he says to them will apply to other less extreme cases (see the Discussion on p. 399).
3. ὁἐθω ̣̣̣ὁδ μ ἐθω. St. Paul uses these expressions to express briefly the two classes with which he is dealing (see ver. 6). Pride and contempt would be the natural failing of the one; a spirit of censoriousness of the other.
ὁΘὸ γρατνποεάεο See ver. 1. God through Christ has admitted men into His Church without imposing on them minute and formal observances; they are not therefore to be criticized or condemned for neglecting practices which God has not required.
4. σ τςε; St. Paul is still rebuking the ‘weak.’ The man whom he is condemning is not a household slave, but the servant of God; to God therefore he is responsible.
τ ἰί κρῳ Dat. of reference: cf. vv. 5-8. ‘It is to his own master that he is responsible.’ He it is to whom he must show whether he has used or misused his freedom, whether he has had the strength to fulfil his work or whether he has failed. ππε (11:11, 11:22) of moral failure; σήε (1Co_16:13; Php_1:27) of moral stability. In 1Co_10:12 the two are contrasted, ὥτ ὁδκνἑτνιβεέωμ πσ.
σαήεα δ: cf. Mat_12:25. In spite of your censoriousness he will be held straight, for the same Lord who called him on conditions of freedom to His kingdom is mighty to hold him upright. The Lord will give grace and strength to those whom He has called.
For δντῖ(אA B C D F G), which is an unusual word, later MSS. substituted δντς(P, Bas. Chrys.), or δντς̣̣̣ἐτν(T R with L and later MSS.). For ὁΚρο (אA B C P, Sah. Boh., &c.) ὁΘό was introduced from ver. 3 (D E F G L, &c., Vulg., Orig.-lat. Bas. Chrys., &c.), perhaps because of the confusion with τ Κρῳabove.
5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulousness, —the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colossians for the same reason. Gal_4:10, Gal_4:11 ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Col_2:16, Col_2:17 ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.’ St. Paul does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the question, as illustrating (hence γρ the general discussion of the chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured in his own conscience that he is doing right.
Various commentators have discussed the relation of these directions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Iovinian. ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter ieiunia et saturitatem aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loquitur, qui in Christum credentes, adhuc iudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indifferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupulousness in any form. So these same principles would apply equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days or Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline.
Tisch. (Exo_8) reads here ὃ μνγρwith אA C P, Vulg. Boh. (which he quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The γρis omitted by א B D E F G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. T. R. RV. and inserted between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly Western in character.
κίε, ‘estimates,’ ‘approves of’: Plat. Phil. p. 57 E is quoted. πρ, ‘passing by’ and so ‘in preference to.’
πηοοεσω The difference between the Christian and the Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of the Spirit; he must do what his νῦ, his highest intellectual faculty, tells him to be right. On the word πηοοεσωsee on 4:21 and cf. Clem. Rom. 42 πηοοηέτςδὰτςἀατσω.
6. The reason for indifference in these matters is that both alike, both the man who has grasped the Christian principle and the man who is scrupulous, are aiming at the one essential thing, to render service to God, to live as men who are to give account to Him.
ὁφοῶ: ‘esteem,’ ‘estimate,’ ‘observe.’ Κρῳ emphatic, is Dat. of reference as above, ver. 4.
ὁἐθω …ὁμ ἐθω: see ver. 3. Both alike make their meal an occasion of solemn thanksgiving to God, and it is that which consecrates the feast. Is there any reference in αχρσε to the Christian εχρσί?
After Κρῳφοε the T. R. with later authorities (LP &c., Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt.) add κὶὁμ φοῶ τνἡέα Κρῳο φοε, a gloss which seemed necessary for completing the sentence on the analogy of the last half of the verse. The addition of this clause caused the omission of κίbefore ὁἐθω (TR. with some minuscules). That the words κὶὁμ φοῶ were not parts of the original text omitted by homoeoteleuton is shown by the fact that many authorities which insert them still preserve the superfluous κί(Syrr., Bas. Chrys. Thdrt. and many minuscules). Various instances of homoeoteleuton occur, as might be expected, in these verses, but they are in all cases confined to a single or very slight authority. L omits κὶὁμ ἐθω …εχ τ θῷ 66 omits ἡέα to ἡέα; minusc. 3 omit ἐθε to ἐθε.
7-12. St. Paul proceeds to develop more fully, and as a general rule of life, the thought suggested in ver. 6. To God we are responsible whether we live or die; before His judgement-seat we shall appear; therefore we must live as men who are to give account of our lives to Him and not to one another.
7. οδῖ γρ…ἀονσε. In life and in death we are not isolated, or solitary, or responsible only to ourselves. It is not by our own act we were created, nor is our death a matter that concerns us alone.
8. τ Κρῳ ‘but it is to Christ, as men living in Christ’s sight and answerable to Him, that we must live; in Christ’s sight we shall die. Death does not free us from our obligations, whether we live or die we are the Lord’s.’ Wetstein compares PirqêAboth, iv. 32 ‘Let not thine imagination assure thee that the grave is an asylum; for perforce thou wast framed, and perforce thou wast born, and perforce thou livest, and perforce thou diest, and perforce thou art about to give account and reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed is He.’
It may be noticed that in these verses St. Paul describes the Christian life from a point of view other than that which he had adopted in chap. 8. There it was the higher aspects of that life as lived in union with Christ, here it is the life lived as in His sight and responsible to Him.
9. The reason for this relation of all men to Christ as servants to their master is that by His death and resurrection Christ has established His Divine Lordship over all alike, both dead and living. Responsibility to Him therefore no one can ever escape.
εςτῦοis explained by ἵακρεσ.
ἀέαεκὶἔηε must refer to Christ’s death and resurrection. ἔηε cannot refer to the life of Christ on earth, (1) because of the order of words which St. Paul has purposely and deliberately varied from the order ζμνκὶἀονσωε of the previous verses; (2) because the Lordship of Christ is in the theology of St. Paul always connected with His resurrection, not His life, which was a period of humiliation (Rom_8:34; 2Co_4:10, 2Co_4:11); (3) because of the tense; the aorist ἔηε could be used of a single definite act which was the beginning of a new life, it could not be used of the continuous life on earth.
νκῶ κὶζνω. The inversion of the usual order is owing to the order of words in the previous part of the sentence, ἀέ. κὶἔη. For the κρόη of Christ (ἵακρεσ) see Php_2:9, Php_2:11.
For Χιτςthe T. R. with later MSS., Syrr., Iren.-lat. reads κὶΧιτςἀέαε κὶἔηε, the older and most difficult reading (אA B C, Boh., Arm. Aeth. Orig.-lat. Chrys. 1/2) has been explained in various ways; by ἀέ. κὶἀέτ F G Vulg. Orig. and other Fathers; by ἀέ. κὶἀέτ κὶἀέηε T. R. with minusc. (perhaps conflate); by ἀέ. κὶἀέτ κὶἔηε, LP. &c., Harkl. and some Fathers: by ἔη. κὶἀέ. κὶἀέτ DE. Iren.
10. St. Paul applies the argument pointedly to the questions he is discussing. We are responsible to Christ; we shall appear before Him: there is no place for uncharitable judgements or censorious exclusiveness between man and man.
σ δ τ κίεςrefers to ὁμ ἐθω, ἢκὶσ to ὁἐθω.
πρσηόεατ βμτ τῦΘο. Cf. Act_27:24 Κίαίσ δῖπρσῆα. For βμ, in the sense of a judge’s official seat, see Mat_27:19; Job_19:13, &c. God is here mentioned as Judge because (see 2:16) He judges the world through Christ. In 2Co_5:10 the expression is τὺ γρπνα ἡᾶ φνρθνιδῖἔποθντῦβμτςτῦΧιτῦ It is quite impossible to follow Liddon in taking Θο of Christ in his Divine nature; that would be contrary to all Pauline usage: but it is important to notice how easily St. Paul passes from Χιτςto Θό. The Father and the Son were in his mind so united in function that They may often be interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son.
Θο must be accepted as against Χιτῦon decisive authority. The latter reading arose from a desire to assimilate the expression to 2Co_5:10.
11. St. Paul supports his statement of the universal character of God’s judgement by quoting Isa_45:23 (freely acc. to the LXX). In the O. T. the words describe the expectation of the universal character of Messianic rule, and the Apostle sees their complete fulfilment at the final judgement.
ἐοοοήεα τ Θῷ ‘shall give praise to God,’ according to the usual LXX meaning; cf. 15:9, which is quoted from Ps. 17:50 (18:50).
ζ ἐγ, λγ Κρο is substituted for κτ ἐατῦὀνω cf. Num_14:28 &c.; for πσ γῶσ κτλ the LXX reads ὀετιπ γ τνΘό.
12. The conclusion is: it is to God and not to man that each of us has to give account. If Θῷbe read (see below), it may again be noted how easily St. Paul passes from Κρο to Θό (see on ver. 10 and cf. 14:3 with 15:7).
There are several minor variations of text. ονis omitted by B D F G P and perhaps the Latin authorities, which read itaque. For δσιof the T. R. WH. read ἀοώε with B D F G Chrys., the Latin authorities reading reddit (but Cyprian dabit). τ Θῷat the end of the sentence is omitted by B F G Cypr. Aug. In all these cases B is noticeable as appearing with a group which is almost entirely Western in character.
13. The Apostle now passes to another aspect of the question. He has laid down very clearly the rule that all such points are in themselves indifferent; he has rebuked censoriousness and shown that a man is responsible to God alone. Now he turns completely round and treats the question from the other side. All this is true, but higher than all is the rule of Christian charity, and this demands, above all, consideration for the feelings and consciences of others.
Μκτ ον…κίωε marks the transition to the second question by summing up the first.
κίαε for the play on words cf. 12:3, 14, 13:1. ‘Do not therefore judge one another, but judge this for yourself, i. e. determine this as your course of conduct’: cf. 2Co_2:1.
τ μ τθνι…τ ἀεφ …σάδλν τθνιis suggested by the literal meaning of σάδλν a snare or stumbling-block which is laid in the path. St. Paul has probably derived the word σάδλνand the whole thought of the passage from our Lord`s words reported in Mat_18:6 f. See also his treatment of the same question in 1Co_8:9 f.
πόκμα…ἤshould perhaps be omitted with B, Arm. Pesh. As Weiss points out, the fact that ἤis omitted in all authorities which omit π. proves that the words cannot have been left out accidentally. πόκμαwould come in from 1Co_8:9 and ver. 20 below.
14. In order to emphasize the real motive which should influence Christians, namely, respect for the feelings of others, the indifference of all such things in themselves is emphatically stated.
ἐ ΚρῳἸσῦ The natural meaning of these words is the same as that of ἐ Χ. (9:1); to St. Paul the indifference of all meats in themselves is a natural deduction from his faith and life in Christ. It may be doubted whether he is here referring expressly to the words of Christ (Mar_7:15; Mat_15:11); when doing so his formula is πρλβνἀὸτῦΚρο.
κιό. The technical term to express those customs and habits, which, although ‘common’ to the world, were forbidden to the pious Jew. Jos. Ant. XIII, i. 1 τνκιὸ βο πορμνυ: 1 Macc. 1:47, 62; Act_10:14 ὅιοδπτ ἔαο πνκιὸ κὶἀάατν
δʼἑυο, ‘in itself,’ ‘in its own nature.’
That δʼἑυο is the right reading is shown by (1) the authority of אB C also of א(Cod. Patiriensis, see Introduction, §7) supported by many later MSS., the Vulgate, and the two earliest commentators Orig.-lat. In Domine ergo Iesu nihil commune per semetipsum, hoc est natura sui dicitur, and Chrys. τ φσιφσνοδνἀάατνand (2) by the contrast with τ λγζμν. δʼατῦ ‘through Christ’ (so Theodrt. and later comm.) is a correction.
ε μ τ λγζμν κτλ Only if a man supposes that the breach of a ceremonial law is wrong, and is compelled by public opinion or the custom of the Church to do violence to his belief, he is led to commit sin; for example, if at the common Eucharistic meal a man were compelled to eat food against his conscience it would clearly be wrong.
15. ε γρ The γρ(which has conclusive manuscript authority) implies a suppressed link in the argument. ‘You must have respect therefore for his scruples, although you may not share them, for if,’ &c.
λπῖα. His conscience is injured and wounded, for he willfully and knowingly does what he thinks is wrong, and so he is in danger of perishing (ἀόλε
ὑὲ ο Χιτςἀέαε Cf. 1Co_8:10, 1Co_8:11. Christ died to save this man from his sins, and will you for his sake not give up some favourite food?
16. μ βαφμίθ κτλ Let not that good of yours, i. e. your consciousness of Christian freedom (cf. 1Co_10:29 ἡἐεθραμυ become a cause of reproach. St. Paul is addressing the strong, as elsewhere in this paragraph, and the context seems clearly to point, at least primarily, to opinions within the community, not to the reputation of the community with the outside world. The above interpretation, therefore (which is that of Gifford and Vaughan), is better than that which would refer the passage to the reputation of the Christian community amongst those not belonging to it (Mey-W. Lips. Liddon).
17. Do not lay such stress on this freedom of yours as to cause a breach in the harmony of the Church; for eating and drinking are not the principle of that kingdom which you hope to inherit.
ἡβσλί τῦΘο. An echo of our Lord’s teaching. The phrase is used normally in St. Paul of that Messianic kingdom which is to be the reward and goal of the Christian life; so especially 1Co_6:9, 1Co_6:10, where it is laid down that certain classes shall have no part in it. Hence it comes to mean the principles or ideas on which that kingdom is founded, and which are already exhibited in this world (cf. 1Co_4:20). The term is, of course, derived through the words of Christ from the current Jewish conceptions of an actual earthly kingdom; how far exactly such conceptions have been spiritualized in St. Paul it may be difficult to say.
βῶι κὶπσς If, as is probable, the weak brethren are conceived of as having Judaizing tendencies, there is a special point in this expression. ‘If you lay so much stress on eating and drinking as to make a point of indulging in what you will at all costs, you are in danger of falling into the Judaizing course of interpreting the Messianic prophecies literally, and imagining the Messianic kingdom to be one of material plenty’ (Iren. V. xxxiii. 3).
These words are often quoted as condemning any form of scrupulousness concerning eating and drinking; but that is not St. Paul’s idea. He means that ‘eating and drinking’ are in themselves so unimportant that every scruple should be respected, and every form of food willingly given up. They are absolutely insignificant in comparison with ‘righteousness’ and ‘peace’ and ‘joy.’
δκισν κτλ This passage describes man’s life in the kingdom, and these words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. δκισν therefore is not used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, but means righteousness or just dealing; ερν is the state of peace with one another which should characterize Christians; χρ is the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community; cf. Act_2:46 μτλμαο τοῆ ἐ ἀαλάε κὶἀεόηικρίς
18. The same statement is generalized. The man who, on the principle implied by these virtues (ἐ τύῳ not ἐ τύος is Christ’s servant, i. e. who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory and charitable towards others, not by harshly emphasizing his Christian freedom, is not only well-pleasing to God, but will gain the approval of men.
δκμςτῖ ἀθώος The contrast to βαφμίθ of ver. 16. Consideration for others is a mark of the Christian character which will recommend a man to his fellow-men. δκμς able to stand the test of inspection and criticism (cf. 2Ti_2:15).
19. οκδμς cf. 1Co_14:26 πναπὸ οκδμνγνσω 1Th_5:11 οκδμῖεεςτνἕα
δώοε (אA B F G L P ב is really more expressive than the somewhat obvious correction δώωε (C D E, Latt.). D E F G add φλξμνafter ἀλλυ.
20. κτλε…ἔγνkeeps up the metaphor suggested by οκδμς ‘Build up, do not destroy, that Christian community which God has founded in Christ.’ Cf. 1Co_3:9 Θο γρἐμνσνρο. Θο γώγο, Θο οκδμ ἐτ. The words ερν and οκδμ both point to the community rather than the individual Christian.
πναμνκθρ: cf. 1Co_10:23 πναἔετν ἀλ ο πνασμέε. πναἔετν ἀλ ο πναοκδμῖ
ἀλ κκν the subject to this must be supplied from πνα It is a nice question to decide to whom these words refer. (1) Are they addressed to the strong, those who by eating are likely to give offence to others (so Va. Oltr., and the majority of commentaries)? or (2) are they addressed to the weak, those who by eating what they think it wrong to eat injure their own consciences (so Gif. Mey.-W.. and others)? In the former case δὰποκμαο (on the δάcf. 2:27, 4:11) means ‘so as to cause offence,’ in the latter ‘so as to take offence’ (Tyndale, ‘who eateth with hurt of his conscience’). Perhaps the transition to ver. 21 is slightly better if we take (1).
21. A thing in itself indifferent may be wrong if it injures the consciences of others; on the other hand, to give up what will injure others is a noble act.
κλν cf. 1Co_7:1 and for the thought 1Co_8:13 δόε, ε βῶασαδλζιτνἀεφνμυ ο μ φγ κέ εςτναῶα ἵαμ τνἀεφνμυσαδλσ. We know the situation implied in the Corinthian Epistle, and that it did not arise from the existence of a party who habitually abstained from flesh: St. Paul was merely taking the strongest instance he could think of. It is equally incorrect therefore to argue from this verse that there was a sect of vegetarians and total abstainers in Rome. St. Paul merely takes extreme forms of self-deprivation, which he uses as instances. ‘I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to offend my brother.’
The T. R. adds after ποκπε the gloss ἣσαδλζτιἣἀθνῖwith B Western and Syrian authorities (אא B D E F G L P, &c., Vulg. Sah., Bas. Chrys.). They are omitted by אA C ב Pesh. Boh., Orig. and Orig.-lat. This is a very clear instance of a Western reading in B; cf. 11:6.
22. σ πσι ἣ ἔες Your faith is sufficient to see that all these things are a matter of indifference. Be content with that knowledge, it is a matter for your own conscience and God. Do not boast of it, or wound those not so strong as yourself.
The preponderance of authorities (אA B C, Vulg. codd. Boh., Orig.-lat.) compels us to read ἣ ἔες The omission of ἥ (D E F G L P ב Vulg. codd. Syrr. Boh., Chrys. &c.) is a Western correction and an improvement.
μκρο κτλ Blessed (see on 4:6, 7) because of his strong faith is the man who can courageously do what his reason tells him that he may do without any doubt or misgiving κίω, to ‘judge censoriously so as to condemn,’ cf. 2:1, 3, 27. δκμζι(1:28, 2:18) to ‘approve of after testing and examining.’
23. ὁδ δαρνμνς see on 4:20. If a man doubts or hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he would have no doubt or hesitation.
πνδ ὃοκἐ πσες ἁαταἐτν πσι is subjective, the strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. ‘Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being convinced of their indifference is itself sin.’ This maxim (1) is not concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.
This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra Iulianum iv, one passage of which (§32) may be quoted: Ex quo colligitur, etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt; quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has been used to support the two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chrysostom says, ‘When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.’ The words do not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing Christians; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a ‘good conscience’; ‘everything which is not done with a clear conscience is sin.’ So Aquinas, Summa i. 2,qu. xix, art. v. omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam.
On the doxology (16:25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see the Introduction, §8.
Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa.
Oltr. Oltramare.
Va. Vaughan.
Lips. Lipsius.
Gif. Gifford.
Bas. Basil.
Chrys. Chrysostom.
Sah. Sahidic.
Boh. Bohairic.
&c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows:
Vulg. Vulgate.
Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen
Tisch. Tischendorf.
אCod. Sinaiticus
A Cod. Alexandrinus
C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus
P Cod. Porphyrianus
Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster.
אCod. Sinaiticus, corrector c
B Cod. Vaticanus
D Cod. Claromontanus
E Cod. Sangermanensis
F Cod. Augiensis
G Cod. Boernerianus
Syrr. Syriac.
T. R. Textus Receptus.
RV. Revised Version.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
L Cod. Angelicus
Arm. Armenian.
Aeth. Ethiopic.
Orig. Origen.
Cypr. Cyprian.
Aug. Augustine.
Pesh. Peshitto.
Jos. Josephus.
בCod. Patiriensis
Latt. Latin.
אCod. Sinaiticus, corrector a
codd. codices.