Fifth Section.—The true practice of the living worship of God in the management and adjustment of differences between the scrupulous and weak (the captives under the law), and the strong (those inclined to laxity and freedom). The Christian universalism of social life (to take no offence, to give no offence)
Rom_14:1
to Rom_15:4
A. Reciprocal regard, forbearance, and recognition, between the weak and the strong; of taking offence and judging. Rom_14:1-13.
B. Of giving offence and despising. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1
C. Reciprocal edification by self-denial, after the example of Christ. Rom_15:2-4
A. Rom_14:1-13
1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations2[judgments of thoughts]. For one believeth that he may eat all things:another, [but he] who is weak, eateth herbs. 3Let not him that eateth [or, the eater] despise him that eateth not [or, the abstainer]; and let not him which eateth not [or, the abstainer] judge him that eateth [or, the eater]: for God hath received him. 4Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up [made to stand]: for God [the Lord] is able to make him stand. 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fullypersuaded in his own mind. He that [who] regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and 6he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it [omit this clause]. He that [And he who] eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks [thanks unto God]; and he that [who] eateth not, to 7the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks [thanks unto God]. For noneof us liveth to himself, and no man [none] dieth to himself. 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived [Christ died and lived again], that he mightbe Lord both of the dead and [the] living. 10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all standbefore the judgment-seat of Christ [God].11For it is written,As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess [givepraise] to God. 12So then every one of us shall give account of himself toGod. 13Let us not therefore judge one another any more:
B. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1
13But judge this rather, that no man [not to] put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall [of falling] in his [a] brother’s way. 14I know, and am persuaded by [in] the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing [that nothing is] unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be [accounteth any thing]15unclean, to him it is unclean. But [For] if thy brother be grieved with thy meat [if because of thy meat thy brother is grieved], now walkest thou not charitably [thou art no longer walking according to love]. Destroy not him16with thy meat, [Destroy not by thy meat him] for whom Christ died. Let notthen your good be evil spoken of: 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink [eating and drinking]; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18For he that [who] in these things [herein] serveth Christ is acceptable19[well-pleasing] to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace [the things of peace], and things wherewith one may edify another [the things which pertain to mutual edification].20For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure [clean];21but it is evil for that [the] man who eateth with [through] offence. It is good neither [not] to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do] any thing whereby [wherein] thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made [omit made] weak. 22Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy [Blessed] is he that condemneth [who judgeth] not himself in that thing [omit thing] which he 23alloweth. And [But] he that [who] doubteth is damned [condemned] if he eat, because he eateth [it is] not of faith: for [and] whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Rom_15:1 We then [Now we who] that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
C. Rom_15:2-4
2Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good [with a view] to edification. 3For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me. 4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning [instruction], that we through [the] patience and [the] comfort of the Scriptures might have [our] hope.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
General Preliminary Remarks.—After the Apostle has described the duties of Christians, especially of the Christians at Rome, in their various general, fundamental relations: (1) As duties toward the Church; (2) In all personal relations; (3) Toward the State; and, (4) Toward the world, he proceeds to lay down the universal deportment of the Roman Church, by establishing the proper reciprocal conduct between, the strong (
äõíáôïß
) and the weak (
ἀäýíáôïé
, Rom_15:1;
ἀóèåíïῦíôåò
, Rom_14:1).
In the first place, it is manifest that such a difference existed. This is especially evident from Rom_15:7-9. Second, it is likewise evident that the one tendency springing from Judaism was a legally punctilious tendency; while the other, being connected with heathen culture and freedom, was more liberal. This is supported in a very general way by the connection of this opposition with the, forms of opposition which the Apostle treats in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, &c. There is the following characteristic of the antithesis as it appears here: Some are weak in regard to faith, the freedom of faith, while others are strong in this respect (Rom_14:21-22). Some lay stress on their (under conditions which are not stated) eating no meat, drinking no wine (Rom_14:21), and keeping certain holy-days. The others know that they are free in this respect, and, proud of their freedom, and regardless of the consequence, seem inclined to use it at the expense of fellowship and unanimity. It is therefore the contrast of the punctilious and the large-hearted and liberal consciences (that is, decisions of conscience). Hence it is also characteristic of the former class, that they are inclined to judge, to take offence; and of the others, that they are inclined to despise, and thus to give offence. This contrast is so definite, that we deem it best to divide the section accordingly. Further, it follows from this that the more liberal party—we might even say the Pauline—was decidedly in the ascendancy (particularly according to chaps. Rom_14:1 and Rom_15:1), since it was necessary to make the repeated admonition, not to break off fellowship with the others. Though the Jewish-Christian element in the Church was a numerous one, it does not follow that the element of punctilious believers was equally so.
Finally, it is absolutely necessary to distinguish the standpoint of these punctilious believers as well from the very marked (alike in degree, but in fact divided) standpoints of the Galatian and Colossian fase teachers, as from the not less marked but yet already schismatic standpoint of the Petrine party of Corinth. The Apostle designates the Galatian false teachers, in Rom_2:4, as false brethren; he conditionally excludes them from communion, in so far as they persist in their doctrinally false gospel, and would make circumcision (which is at the same time the requirement of the legal standpoint) a necessary condition of Christian salvation. By these Ebionites there can only be meant Pharisaic, purely Jewish, people. The Colossian false teachers are, in degree, not less false brethren, because they likewise adulterate the ground of salvation by dogmatic confidence; but their characteristic plainly leads to the supposition of Essenic Ebionites, for their worship of angels and their asceticism indicate an infusion of heathen elements into Judaism. There were also such false brethren elsewhere (2Co_11:26); and the false apostles in 2Co_11:13 were, undoubtedly, actually connected with the Galatian false teachers. The Petrine party itself, however, which does not seem, in the first place, to have extended beyond ethical, liturgical, and ascetic peculiarities and inclinations to separation, must be distinguished from these agitators, who furthered the doctrinal adulteration of the law.
Yet the case stood still better with the weak brethren in Rome. The Apostle treats them so gently, that we can evidently not take them for decidedly Ebionitic Christians, nor according to the degree and manner of the Galatian and Colossian false teachers, nor according to the initiates of Ebionitism in the Corinthian church. He forbids them only from pronouncing sentence, from their own conscientious standpoint, upon their more liberal brethren; whereas, he even takes their right of conscience against the more liberal brethren under his protection; and there is nothing said of an anathema, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, nor of a warning, as in the Epistle to the Colossians, nor of a censure, as in the Epistles to the Corinthians, to say nothing of the severe criticisms in the Pastoral Epistles. If the Apostle could have expressed such different opinions on the same Ebionitic phantom of Dr. Baur, his character itself would be to us a phantom; that is, all theology would itself have to be gradually transformed into a phantom.
By regarding the mild judgment expressed by the Apostle on the weak brethren in the Church at Rome, we are therefore aided in finding out the character of their standpoint. Various suppositions:
1. They were Jewish Christians, who wished to retain the law, and also the legal holy-days, sabbaths, new-moon feasts (the early commentators, Chrysostom, Ambrose, &c., Calvin, and others). Origen’s rejoinder: “Meat and wine were not forbidden in the law.” Tholuck observes, that Paul speaks in quite a different tone against such Judaists. The laying down of this category becomes justifiable, if we distinguish between doctrinal and ethical legality in reference to the laws on food and purification. For the reason given above, the question here cannot be concerning a doctrinal statute.
2. Jewish-Christian ascetics. For examples of them, see Tholuck, p. 699. But pure Judaism is a stranger to all strictly doctrinal forms of asceticism, and is acquainted only with an ethical form: (1) That of the Nazarites for the whole life; (2) That of the Nazaritic vow for a limited time; (3) The theocratic general and special ordinance of fasts; (4) The personal fasting of individuals in special states of life. But there can be nothing said here of all this, and just as little of the doctrinal asceticism of Christians of Essenic prejudices, on whom the Apostle has expressed himself in Colossians 2. Thus the view of Baur, and others, falls to the ground. On the abundant confusion arising from the supposition that heathen motives are connected with the motives of the weak brethren here, see Tholuck’s quotations on the Neo-Platonists, the Pythagoreans, and the Gnostic Ebionites, pp. 699 ff. These do not belong here with the cited examples of Jewish Nazarites, because the latter never thought of compelling others to adopt their manner of life.
3. Ethical and social motives, arising from fear of mingling with the heathen sacrificial customs. Tholuck says: “According to Augustine, reference is here made to the same persons as in 1 Corinthians 7., the reference here being to those who, because they, in buying food at the market, could not sufficiently distinguish the meat offered to idols, preferred to abstain altogether from eating meat. This explanation is implied by Cocceius, and has recently been defended by Michaelis, Philippi, and especially by Neander, and certainly has by far the strongest grounds in its favor.” The weak brethren, therefore, were not influenced by doctrinal but by ethical motives: (1) Fear of eating meat offered to idols; (2) Of drinking the wine of the heathen drink-offerings (Deu_32:38; (3) In addition to this was their necessity of still retaining as a pious custom the Jewish holy-days, for it is well known that the Sabbath, which was observed together with Sunday, gradually died out in the Church as a day of rest. As examples of the abstinence named, Tholuck cites Daniel (Rom_1:8; Rom_1:12; Rom_1:16), Esther (Rom_4:16), Tobias (Rom_1:12), and the Maccabees. (2Ma_5:27). The gradations (cited by Tholuck) of this scrupulousness on the part of the punctilious Jews, do not here come into consideration, as the weak brethren, according to Philippi’s observation, did not withdraw from eating with the Gentiles (?) and the Gentile Christians. Likewise, the decree in Acts xv. is justifiably cited in favor of the view presented. Tholuck, with Philippi, is right in not admitting that, because of an adherence to special holidays, there were two parties among the weak brethren.
4. Various views. According to Erasmus, and others, both the tradition of laws respecting food and the fear of eating meat offered to idols, were motives. According to Chrysostom, and others, they would refrain from all meat, to escape blame, in consequence of the Jewish disdain of swine-meat. According to Eichhorn, these people were generally Gentile-Christian ascetics, who entertained philosophic and ascetic principles, especially the Neo-Pythagorean. Meyer supposes the “influence of Essenic principles,” yet so that they are not led into conflict with justification by faith; however, he opposes Baur’s view, that the people were Ebionitic Christians, because abstinence from wine by the Ebionites has been nowhere certified. He asserts, against view (3), that the Apostle did not speak, as in 1Co_8:10, of the sacrificial character of meat and wine—as if this had been necessary in the presence of the well-known variance in the Church at Rome! After all, the object of the scrupulousness here was not the principal thing, but the laying down of the canon by which “the weak and the strong” in a church specially called to universality have to preserve their unanimity—the one class, by not taking offence in a Pharisaic, censorious spirit, and the other, by not giving offence in a reckless arrogance of freedom.
A. Rom_14:1-13 : Reciprocal regard, forbearance, and recognition between the weak and the strong. Especially of the taking offence and judging on the part of the weak. Meyer, on Rom_14:1-12 : “Fraternal behavior toward the weak asked for (Rom_14:1). The first point of difference between the two classes, and the encouragement because of it (Rom_14:5). The proper point of view for both in their differences (Rom_14:6), and its establishment (Rom_14:7-9); censure and impermissibility of the opposite course of conduct (Rom_14:10-12).”
Rom_14:1. Him that is weak in the faith [
ôὸí äὲ ἀóèåíïῦíôá ôῇ ðßóôåé
]. The
äÝ
connects with the foregoing; Rom_13:14. After the Apostle has expressed the recognition of physical necessities, and the necessity of limiting the provision for them, he finds himself induced, first of all, to admonish those more freely disposed in this respect to be forbearing toward the weak (Meyer, Philippi). This applies to the formal connection; but, according to the real connection, he must come, at any rate, to this difference between Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity (De Wette), although only the first elements of it were present in the Roman Church.
Weak in the faith. The feeble in respect to faith, the standpoint of faith and its consequences. Since each party reciprocally held the other as the weaker in faith, we might think that in this sense the general exhortation applies to both parts in the sense of: him who appears to you as weak in the faith. But Paul does not deny his standpoint; he immediately afterward calls one who is scrupulous respecting food:
ὁ ἀóèåíῶí
. And this is important; it proves that the Apostle does not design to deprive the strong of the liberty, which he himself takes, of frankly expressing his judgment on the differences. The strong should therefore stand to their conviction; but they should not make any such application of it as would be against brotherly love and fellowship. According to Tholuck, his reason for addressing the strong first (yet not “altogether,” though “chiefly”) was, not that the Gentile Christians constituted the great majority of the Church, but, on the principle stated by Chrysostom, that the weaker part stands in continual need of most care. Yet the Christians of Pauline tendencies, who must not be identified strictly with Gentile Christians, constitute the body of the Church.
As the two parties were not at all separated, the
ðñïæëáìâÜíåóèå
cannot mean exactly receive; at least not in the sense of strict communion (Erasmus, Grotius, Luther, and others), nor receive him to yourselves (Olshausen [Hodge, Stuart], and other’s), according to Act_28:2. Between these there lies the idea of reception in the emphatic sense, to draw into an inward, friendly intercourse. [Alford: “ ‘Give him your hand,’ as Syr. (Tholuck): ‘count him one of you,’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging him.”—R.] In such relations of difference, the relative danger of intolerance always lies on the stronger side; therefore the case was very different in Rome from what it was in Galatia. Yet the Apostle does not fail to point out the intolerance on the part of those who are punctilious.—Explanations of the
ðßóôéò
:
1. The religious belief of the ecclesiastical doctrine (Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Beza; Luther: the Lutheran theologians in part).
2. Moral conviction in reference to what is permissible (Este, Bellarmine, Erasmus, some of the older Protestant theologians, Arminians, Socinians). [So Stuart, Hodge.]
3. Accommodating explanations: The practical application of faith (Chrysostom, and others); knowledge (Grotius, Semler).
Against (1) it must be said (apart from the fact that a difference still exists between the doctrine of faith, as such, and the vital energy of justifying faith), that the Apostle does not here emphasize the antithesis of truth and error, but that of confidence and doubt. Against (2) it may be said, that the reference cannot be, absolutely, to a merely subjective ideal fidelity to conviction without the objective basis of truth. It is clear from Rom_14:6, that the Apostle ascribes to both parties religious faith as well as fidelity to conviction; that the weaker brother holds, in a certain sense, most inflexibly to his conviction, follows from the fact that he is of the party that judges, while the other is of the party that despises. Rom_14:23 says, that he can even sin against his faith by eating in doubt; and the context says, as well, that the less careful brother can sin against his faith by an uncharitable abuse of his freedom. Thus both parties have and exercise faith, being true to their conviction of faith; but the weak in faith show their weakness by not venturing, in the traditional scrupulousness of their legal conscience, to draw the full conclusion from their justifying faith, in order to break through their religious prejudices and prepossessions.
The Apostle proves that he does not recognize this weakness as a permanent rule for their life, by the candidly expressed conviction of his standpoint, as well as by his doctrine, in Rom_14:14; but he does not wish that the free development of their consistency of faith should be affected by the strong giving them offence, either to make them more scrupulous, or to mislead to a frivolous transgression of their conscientious limits. As, therefore, faith in 1Co_12:9 is a vigorous faith in reference to performing miracles, so here, in reference to the practical development of life; in both cases there is the full consequence of world-conquering confidence—there, in overcoming the force of the disturbed states of body and soul, and here, in conquering the power of legal misconceptions and prejudices. Tholuck is correct in observing, that the two explanations (of religious faith and fidelity to conviction) do not conflict with each other. The religious Christian faith, according to its practical form in the developing stage of the dictate of conscience, comprises both elements; as even the early expositors, who explained
ðßóôéò
by saving faith, have generally placed the certitudo conscientiœ along with it (see Tholuck, p. 705); while, on the other hand, it is made emphatic in many ways, that reference here is to the moral conviction of those who believe in Christ on the ground of this faith (Meyer). [Philippi, Tholuck, Meyer, and most German commentators, together with Alford, and others, have carefully guarded against the purely subjective meaning: moral conviction, adopted by Stuart and Hodge. At the same time, they very properly reject the purely objective sense of
ðßóôéò
, Christian doctrine—a sense which the word rarely, if ever, has in the New Testament. Hence the correct rendering is not: weak in faith, or as to faith (Hodge), for thus the article is ignored, nor yet: weak in his faith, which is too subjective, but (as in E. V.): weak in the faith. Alford: “Holding the faith imperfectly—i.e., not being able to receive the faith in its strength, so as to be above such prejudices.”—R.]
But not to judgments of thoughts [
ìÞ åἰò äéáêñßóåéò äéáëïãéóìῶí
. Dr. Lange: Doch nicht zur Aburtheilung von Bewisgründen. See below.—R.]
ÄéÜêñéóéò
means, in 1Co_12:10 and Heb_5:14, to pronounce judgment, sentence.
Áéáëïãéóìïß
generally denotes thoughts, but, regarded as moral (or often immoral) motives, imaginations (Rom_1:21; 1Co_3:20), or even doubts (Php_2:14; 1Ti_2:8). Accordingly, the connection leads to the explanation: Not to the judicial decision of motives. Do not keep frequent company with them for the object, or even to such an issue of the matter, that the mutual motives or differences shall be concluded by premature decision, that a fault-finding of the different tendencies can arise from it. It is evident that the expression cannot mean: “Not for criticizing scrupulous niceties,” as an exhortation to the strong (Tholuck). For the Apostle himself has criticized the scrupulous niceties of the weak sufficiently plainly, by characterizing them as weak, and not yielding their point theoretically. Philippi is right when he observes that, throughout the present chapter, the Apostle ascribes the
êñéíåéò
to the weak, but the
ἐîïõèåíåῖí
to the strong. Yet he arrives at the explanation: Receive them affectionately, so that no mental doubts arise in them. But this is something quite different from Luther’s expression: Do not perplex their consciences. Mental doubts must needs arise in them, and even be awakened, if one would aid them to a more liberal standpoint. But, in their theoretical treatment, they must not be forced beyond the measure of their weakness, but such a premature decision should not also arise on their side. Paul could well exact of the strong, that they should not eat meat for the sake of the weak, &c.; but not, that they should hypocritically deny their more liberal view in mental intercourse with them, or allow it to be overcome and judged. This submission of many a more discerning one to the harsh judgment of the narrow-minded has ever been a source of serious injury. But the measure of possibility should be, to treat the differences as nonessential peculiarities, on the common ground of being the measure of a truly hearty, but also very careful, intercourse (comp. Rom_16:17-18). This premature decision of what the development of spiritual life can harmonize only in time, is therefore forbidden to both parties. The strong are, however, chiefly recommended to deport themselves according to their difficult task, just because the others are chiefly inclined to judge. This view becomes still stronger, if
åἰò
be taken in the sense of result.
If we distinguish candidly the two views: 1. Receive them, but not so that a reciprocal mental judgment is the result of it; 2. Receive them, but not to pronounce judgment on their scruples (Grotius, and others), we must urge against (2), that the stress lies on the modality, on the manner in which the strong should be accustomed to cultivate intercourse with the weak. Therefore Reiche is right in referring the prohibition to both parties, and Chrysostom was not incorrect in attributing criticizing to the weak. That
äéÜêñéóéò
may also mean doubt (Theophylact), does not come further into consideration. Erasmus, Beza, Er. Schmid, have accepted the classical meaning of “doubt” for
äéáëïãéóìïß
, and “conflict” for
äéÜêñéóéò
. [So E. V.] Therefore disputations. But these have ever been unavoidable, and even Paul has not avoided them.
Rom_14:2. For one believeth, &c. [
ὅò ìὲí ðéóôåýåé
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.] The explanation: He is convinced that he can eat every thing (
ðéóôåýåé ἐîåῖíáé
; Tholuck, Reiche, and others), makes faith a subjective opinion. But it rather means: He has a confidence of faith, according to which he can eat every thing (
ὥóôå öáãåῖí ðÜíôá
; Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi).
But he who is weak [
ü äὲ ἀóèåíῶí
. The E. V. assumes a strict antithesis here, but the
ôὸí ἀóèåíïῦíôá
(Rom_14:1). is resumed; hence it is not necessary to find any other special reason for the anacoluthon, though another may be allowable.—R.] The Apostle does not continue with
ὃò äὲ
, because he will first take the weak into special consideration.—Eateth herbs.
ËÜ÷áíá
. The expression is pressed by Meyer, but something symbolical or hyperbolical will nevertheless have to be allowed to his explanation; for example, the joint designation of bread, of vegetable food in general. And it would follow from his view, that this eating of vegetables is an essential characteristic of the weak one, which can be urged with as little literalness as that the strong one is addicted to the eating of all kinds of food. His characteristic is the eating of meat, free from all ordinances. Therefore Fritzsche, Philippi, and others, would not regard the expression as an unconditional preclusion from all enjoyment of meat, as Meyer does. Philippi: “Some would only absolutely refrain from eating meat in order the more easily to overcome temptation in special cases, and others only in those special cases, particularly in the social meals, where their conduct was marked in the church as surprising; and, finally, others would only do so at the social meals, where they were certain that the meat placed before them was meat offered to idols, or, at any rate, were uncertain whether or not it was meat offered to idols. But all these could be very well designated as
ëá÷áíïöÜãïé
.”
Rom_14:3. Let not him who eateth despise, &c. The
ἐîïõèåíåῖí
is the specifically improper conduct of him who, occupying a more liberal point of view, in his own wisdom pleases himself (Tholuck: “The conceit of illuminism, which was found even among the Gentile Christians, as 1 Corinthians 8.”).—Judge. On the other hand, the
êñéíåéí
is the specifically improper conduct of the legal believer, and it is not correct to suppose that (according to Tholuck) the
ἐîïõèåíåῖí
belongs as a species under this
êñßíåéí
. That the Apostle, in the present section, has, first of all, to do with the one judging, the one taking offence, is plain, as well from the construction of the foregoing verse as from the succeeding fourth verse. It is also clear from the additional:
For God hath received him [
ὁ Èåὸò ãὰñ áὐôὸí ðñïóåëÜâåôï
]. He has been received into the communion of God and Christ, and thou wilt excommunicate him? This should always be perceived by believers relying on the letter, in relation to Christians who are established upon the real ground of faith. [Stuart and Hodge (following Calvin) apply this clause to both classes, but this is forbidden both by the context and by the fact that the strong are not disposed to reject but to despise the weak; while the weak are ever for excommunicating the strong, withdrawing from fellowship, &c. Hence the pertinence of the clause to this class. So Meyer, De Wette, Philippi, Alford, and most.—R.] The mark of this reception is rather the peace and light of fellowship with God, than reception into the Church. Yet this also comprises the fact, that God has received him into His service as a servant (Vatabl.), but only indirectly.
Rom_14:4. Who art thou? &c. [
óὺ ôßò åἶ
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
. Comp. Rom_9:20.] Tholuck is here quite beyond the connection (in consequence of the supposition that
ἐîïõèåíåῖí
is only a species of
êñéíåéí
), when he questions whether the weak one here judging is addressed. The
óý
is claimed to belong to both parts (also according to Reiche and Chrysostom) [Stuart, Hodge]; while Meyer and Philippi, on the contrary, properly find in it an address to the weak one judging.
Another man’s servant [
ἀëëüôñéïí ïἰêÝôçí
. Paul uses
ïἰêÝôçò
only here, and it occurs in the New Testament but rarely (Luk_16:13; Act_10:7; 1Pe_2:18). It means a house-servant, who is more closely connected with the family than the other slaves (Meyer).—R.] We must not pass lightly over the
ἀëëüôñéïí
. It means not merely another, but a strange one. Meyer, and others: “He who is not in thy service, but in the service of another. But the one who judges is also in the service of this other one. That which causes him to judge, is not chiefly the notion that he is the master of this servant, but that the servant conducts himself in his service as an
ἀëëüôñéïò
, who has in him much that is in itself surprising. The weak one fails to find in him the manner of the
ïἰêåῖïò
.
To his own master [
ôῷ ἰäßù
̣
êõñßù
̣]. The
êýñéïò
is still chiefly figurative, the master of the strange servant. In order to understand the thought to its fullest extent, we must first consider the figure. It is the figure of a master who takes many kinds of servants in his service. Now, if he has one from a foreign country who makes himself a surprising exception, the matter belongs to the master alone, who has become “his own master”—that is, the exclusive master.
Standeth or falleth [
óôÞêåé ἢ ðßðôåé
]. The standing and falling, as an expression of God’s judgment (Psa_1:5; Luk_21:36, &c.), has therefore also the further figurative meaning of standing or not standing in the household judgment. But this figure is from the beginning a clear designation of the relation in which Jewish and Gentile Christians stand to Christ. Christ is the Master; see. Rom_14:8-9; comp. 1Co_6:20; 1Pe_2:9. The dative may be regarded as dativ. comm., even if the master himself is the judge, because it is his loss or gain if the servant falls or stands. Explanations:
1. The standing or falling is judicially understood as God’s judgment (Calvin, Grotius, and many others).
2. The continuance or non-continuance in true. Christian life is meant (Vatabl., Semler, De Wette, Maier, Meyer).
The opposition of these two views has no well-justified meaning, since, in a religious sense, God’s judgment is executed through the life. Meyer, indeed, says, in favor of (2): “To make stand in the judgment (to absolve), is not the work of Divine power, but of grace.” But besides the fact that power and grace do not He so far asunder, there comes into consideration the further fact, that the question here is not concerning a making to stand chiefly in God’s judgment, but in the uninvited judgment of men (Ebionitism, hierarchism, &c.).
He shall be made to stand [
óôáèÞóåôáäÝ
]. Here the Apostle completely withdraws the figurative veil from the thought. The strong man will remain standing in his freedom of faith.
For the Lord is able to make him stand [
äõíáôåῖ ãὰñ ὁ êýñéïò óôῆóáé áὐôüí
. See Textual Notes3 and4.—R.] Christ supports the believer. If the reading
êýñéïò
were regarded as an exegetical correction, we would have to consider, in the reading
Èåüò
, the universal historical, spiritual, and external protection which God has bestowed upon the more liberal heathen Christianity, in opposition to the narrow Jewish Christianity, and to the pure religion of faith in opposition to legally weakened faith. Meyer: “He does not say it as one who gives security, but who hopes.” This is against Reiche, who says that Paul could not go security for the perseverance for the strong one in faith, with his liberal views, and hence the reference must be to the being supported in the judgment. Grotius says, better: est bene ominantis. It must be observed, that the Apostle speaks of the future of the strong man in genere, but not of that of each individual, for he had early experienced that individual men, reputed to be strong, lapsed into antinomianism.
Rom_14:5. One man esteemeth one day above another [
ὂò ìὲí êñßíåé ἡìÝñáí ðáñ
̓
ἡìÝñáí
]. He distinguishes one day from another, and selects it as a holy-day.
Êñßíåéí
= probare. The second point of difference. Selections for feast-days, and not for fast-days, are spoken of (Chrysostom, Augustine, Fritzsche). In harmony with the explanation of fast-days,
ἡìÝñáí ðáῤ ἡìÝñáí
has also been explained by alternis diebus (the Vulgate: judicat diem inter diem; Bengel: the appointment of days for distributing alms). [It has also been referred to the usage in regard to abstinence from meat, &c.—R.] Tholuck: “As from the commandments on food, so also from the Jewish holy-days (Col_2:16), particularly the Sabbath, the Jewish Christian could not wean himself, for we find the observance of the Sabbath even in the fifth century of the Church, also in Const. Ap. 25.” The same author correctly observes, that the holy-days, among the Jews, were not just the same as fast-days (see also Gal_4:10).
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind [
ἓêáóôïò ἐí ôῷ ἰäßù
̣
íïῒ ðëçñïöïñåßóèù
]. The Apostle does not decide in a dogmatical way, although he has sufficiently indicated his point of view. But he lays down a rule which infallibly leads to reconciliation. We cannot here translate
íïῦò
: in his disposition (De Wette), for every one of both these parties would be thus assured in disposition. Rather, every one should seek to change his conviction of feeling—as it is connected with faith in authority, party influence, &c.—into his inmost, spiritually effected conviction. We could therefore here translate
íïῦò
: in his understanding, his self-reflection, his practical reason, his mediated self-consciousness; the same thought is comprised in the expression: self-understanding, regarded as the conscious and reflecting spiritual life, by which the
íïῦò
constitutes an antithesis to the immediateness of the
ðíåῦìá
(see 1Co_14:14-15). In this tendency the rationalist must become free from the dogma of deistical or pantheistical illuminism, and arrive at true rationality; in this tendency, the one who is bound to ordinances must learn to distinguish between the law of the Spirit and the law of the letter; in this tendency, both parties must become free from prejudice, fanaticism, and phraseology, so as to know how to be tolerant, and then to be in peace.
Rom_14:6. He who regardeth the day [
ὁ öñïíῶí ôὴí ἡìÝñáí
]. This verse is a guiding-star, according to which every one, in his spiritual life, should become certain in his conviction. The more one seeks to sanctify his opinion religiously, to bring it before the Lord, and to change it to thanksgiving, so much the more must he distinguish the true and the false in the light of God.
Regardeth it unto the Lord [
êõñßù
̣
öñïíåῖ
. The dative is dat. commodi.] The
êýñéïò
is Christ (Meyer, Philippi, and others); referred by many to God, against which is Rom_14:9; Meyer: unto the Lord’s service. Yet, at all events, a service in a wider sense is meant: for the honor of his Lord (see 1Co_10:31).—[And he that regardeth not, &c. See Textual Note5.—R.]
Proof:For he giveth thanks unto God [
åὐ÷áñéóôåῖ ãὰñ ôῷ Èåῷ
]. The thanksgiving at the table (Mat_15:36; Mat_26:26, &c.) is a proof that, with pious feeling and a good conscience, he consecrates his food and his enjoyment to God as a thank-offering. [Alford: “Adduced as a practice of both parties, this shows the universality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals.”—R.]—And he who eateth not. He who abstains from eating meat. Even he is thankful for his scanty meal.
Rom_14:7. For none of us liveth to himself [
ïὐäåὶò ãὰñ ἡìῶí ἑáõôῷ æῇ
]. The Apostle designates the universal basis of the thought, that the Christian eats or does not eat to the Lord. This rests upon the fact that we exist here, that we live and die, to the Lord. Meyer says, correctly: The dative must be taken in the ethico-telic sense. This telic
åἰò áὐôüí
is, indeed, always connected with a
äé
̓
áὐôïῦ
and
ἐî áὐôïῦ
; although the objective dependence on Christ (Rückert, Reiche) is not directly meant, and, in an absolute sense, all these terms apply, through Christ, to God.
Rom_14:8. We die unto the Lord [
ôῷ êõñßù
̣
ἀðïèíἠóêïìåí
. See Textual Note7.] Even the Christian’s dying is an act of consecration to the glory of Christ (Bengel: eadem ars moriendi, quœ vivendi.)
Whether we live, therefore, or die, &c. [
ἐÜí ôå ïὖí æῶìåí ἐÜí ôå ἀðïèíÞóêùìåí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.] This proposition does not merely serve to establish the foregoing (we eat or do not eat), but to explain and elucidate it. The stronger form, the stronger antithesis of living and dying, underlies the eating and not eating. But both coincide in our being the Lord’s (belonging to Him). [Alford: “We are, under all circumstances, living or dying (and à fortiori eating or abstaining, observing days or not observing them), Christ’s: His property.”—Meyer: “In the thrice-repeated and emphatic
ôῷ êõñßù
̣ (
ôïῦ êõñéïῦ
) notice the divina Christi majestas et potestas (Bengel), to which the Christian knows himself to be entirely devoted.”—R.]
Rom_14:9. For to this end Christ died and lived again [
åἰò ôïῦôï ãὰñ ÷ñéóôὸò ἀðÝèáíåí êáὶ ἒæçóåí
. See Textual Note8.] The telic definition of the death and resurrection of Christ serves, on the other hand, to establish our living and dying to the Lord. The
ἒæçóå
here, as in Rev_2:8, designates Christ’s return to eternal life, hence the
ἀíÝóôç
is passed over. Olshausen would understand the
ἒæçóå
to be the earthly life of Jesus (therefore taken as a Hysteron proteron.) Thereby a uniformity would, at all events, be constituted by the statement: we live or we die, but a dissimilarity would be called forth in relation to what follows. Meyer properly brings out also the fact that the
êõñéüôçò
of the Lord is established on His death and resurrection. But it is in harmony with the telic definition of Christ’s dominion that the antithesis in this life—the living and the dead—recedes behind the antithesis in the future life, the dead (in the act of dying and in Sheol) and the living, by whom it is conditionally established.
Both of the dead and the living. According to Meyer’s suggestion, the purpose is not to refer the effects of Christ’s death and return to life (as sundered) to the dead and to the living respectively (see his note on p. 497).
Rom_14:10. But why dost thou judge. The
óý
is here opposed to the dominion of Christ over the dead and the living, as above, to another man’s servant; but the latter is now denoted brother.
Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? The Apostle, having spoken of the weaker one, now speaks these words to the stronger, in order to maintain his harmonizing position. Here, as well as in the supporting of him who stands, Rom_14:4, and in the thanksgiving in Rom_14:6, the Apostle goes back to the highest causality (see Textual Note9).
For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God [
ðÜíôåò ãÜñ ðáñáóôçóüìåèá ôῷ âÞìáôé ôïῦ Èåïῦ
]. We must appear before the judgment-seat of Cod himself, which Christ shall administer as Lord (Rom_2:16; Act_17:31; comp. Mat_25:33; Act_26:6). The judging of one’s brother, therefore, first, encroaches upon Christ’s office as ruler, and, second, anticipates the judgment-bar of God.
Rom_14:11. For it is written. Isa_45:23. On the free form of the citation from memory, and from the LXX., see Philippi, p. 571. [See also Textual Note10.—R.] On
ἐîïìïëïãåῖóèáé
, with the dative, meaning to praise (Rom_15:9; Mat_11:25, &c.), see Tholuck, p. 719; Meyer, p. 498. [Meyer says the verb with the dative always means: to praise; with the accusative of the object: to confess (Mat_3:6, &c.).—R.] That special kind of praise, however, is meant, which occurs after a finished act of Divine Providence according to a Divine decision (see Php_2:11). Tholuck says: “Isa_45:23 does not speak of the appearance of Christians before the judgment-seat of God, but of mankind’s universal and humble confession of dependence upon God.” But this unwarrantably removes the element of future time, the eschatological element, which is, at all events, also comprised in the passage in Isaiah. Meyer says, somewhat better: “In Isaiah God makes the assurance by an oath, that all men (even the heathen) shall reverently swear allegiance to Him, Paul here regards this Divine declaration which promises messianic victory, because it promises the universal victory of the theocracy, according to the special and final fulfilment that it shall have in the general judgment.”—That even the prophetic passage; itself comprises, with Christ’s saving advent, also the eschatological references, follows from the definite prospect that every knee shall bow before Jehovah, &c. (see Php_2:10-11).
Rom_14:12. So then every one, &c. [See Textual Note11.] Meyer puts the emphasis on
ἕêáóôïò
, Philippi on
ôῷ Èåῷ
, others on
ðåñὶ ἑáõôïῦ
. The first is preferable.—R.] In this lies the ground of the following exhortation (Rom_14:13): Let us not therefore judge one another any more [
ìçêÝôé ïὖí ἀëëÞëïõò êñßíùìåí
]. The Apostle here comprises both parts, and thereby makes his transition to the following admonition to the strong.
B. Rom_14:13 to Rom_15:1. On giving offence and despising. “Exhortation to the strong” in particular.
Rom_14:13. But judge this rather [
ἀëëὰôïῦôï êñßíáôå ìᾶëëïí
]. The
êñßíáôå
. The Apostle uses the same word in a changed meaning, in order to emphasize more particularly, by this antanaclasis, the antithesist o judging. The consideration of the future judgment should move believers in particular to so conduct themselves as to give offence to no one (Mat_18:6 ff.). Meyer: “Let that be your judgment.”
Not to put a stumbling-block or an occasion of falling in a brother’s way [
ôὸ ìὴ ôéèÝíáé ðñüóêïììá ôῷ ἀäåëöῷ ἢ óêÜíäáëïí
]. It does not follow that, because the expressions
ðñüóêïììá
and
óêÜíäáëïí
are, in general, used metaphorically as synonyms, we would here have to accept a “verbosity in the interest of the case” (Meyer). In Rom_14:21 we find even three special designations:
ðñïóêüðôåé ἢ óêáíäáëßæåôáé ἢ ἀóèåíåῖ
. There also, however, Meyer, with others, regards the threefold designation as only the expression of the urgency of the matter. But in a real reference, the twofold effect of the giving offence comes into consideration. The giving offence is either an occasion for the punctilious brother to become embittered and still more hardened in his prejudice, or to conduct himself frivolously, without an understanding of the principle of freedom, and thus, according to the present passage, eat meat with inward scruples of conscience. The Apostle indicates the first case in Rom_14:15, and the second in Rom_14:23. The use of different expressions, in themselves synonymous, to denote this antithesis, was quite natural, and, in Rom_14:21, the Apostle seems to distinguish even three cases: to take an offence forward, or backward, or to be strengthened in weakness. Even to this very day, the offence which the Jews take at Christianity is divided into the two fractions of extreme legality and of wild liberalism. The
ôéèÝíáé
causes us to return to the original sense of the words (see the Lexicons).
Rom_14:14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus [
ïἶäá êáὶ ðÝðåéóìáé ἐíêõñὶù
̣
Ἰçóïῦ
]. He knows it already as an Old Testament monotheist, who knows that God is the Creator of all things (1Ti_4:3-4; Gen_1:31). But he also has the fixed assurance of it in the fellowship of Christ, by virtue of justifying faith in His Spirit. Calovius: libertate a Christo parta. [Alford: “These words give to the persuasion the weight not merely of Paul’s own
ëïãßæïìáé
, but of apostolic authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity as connected with Christ Jesus, as having the mind of Christ.” So Hodge, substantially, but with less exactness, since he retains the incorrect by of the E. V. It is doubtful whether
ἐí
ever has this force. Jowett, however, calls these words: “the form in which St. Paul expresses his living and doing all things in Christ, as, in language colder and more appropriate to our time, we might say as ‘a Christian.” ’ But this is a dilution of the force of the expression.—R.] A consciousness of Christ’s declaration in Mat_15:11 is here more probable than questionable; but then that declaration is not in a legal sense the basis of his freedom (comp. also 1Co_8:8; Col_2:14-16).
Unclean;
êïéíüí
, profane, unclean in the religious legal sense (see the Commentary on Matthew, p. 277; the Commentary on Mark, p. 64). Levitically unclean was, indeed, even still a type of what was common or unclean in the real spiritual sense (Heb_10:29).
Of itself,
äἰ áὑôïῦ
, not according to Lachmann’s reading,
äé
̓
áὐôïῦ
. [See Textual Note12.] Of itself, according to its nature, in contrast with the economical order, the moral convenience, or the natural feeling or conscience of the one partaking. [Theodoret, reading
áὐôïῦ
, refers it to Christ.—R.] “The Apostle himself belongs to the strong (comp.
ἡìåῖò
in Rom_15:1, and 1Co_9:22);” Tholuck. But he also again distinguishes himself from the ordinarily strong one, in that he takes into the account, as a co-determining factor, conscience and regard to fraternal intercourse, or habitual practice.—[But to him,
åἰ ìὴ ôῷ
. This introduces an exception to unclean, not to unclean of itself. Hence not =
ἀëëÜ
but = nisi (Meyer).—R.]—To him it is unclean. With emphasis. [The uncleanness is accordingly subjective (Meyer).—R.]
