Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - Romans 14:1 - 14:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
F. The duty of enlightened Christians towards weak brethren. From moral duties in general of Christians towards each other and towards all the apostle now passes to such as they owe peculiarly to each other as members of a religious community, united by a common faith. He has already (Rom_12:16) admonished his readers to be "of the same mind one toward another;" but, as was remarked under that verse, this did not imply agreement of view on all subjects, such as is impossible where there are many minds. In this chapter he recognizes the impossibility, having immediately before him what was then patent, the inability of some, through prejudice or slowness of conception, to enter into views of the meaning of the gospel which to himself and the more enlightened were apparent. He by no means departs from what he says elsewhere (cf. Gal_1:6-10) about no denial of fundamental doctrine being allowable in the communion of the Church; but in matters not touching the foundation he does here inculcate a large and generous tolerance. In these, as in all other relations between men on the earth together, the all-inspiring principle of charity is to rule. Who the "weak brethren" were whose scruples he especially inculcates tolerance of in this chapter cannot be decided positively. It will he seen that they were persons who thought it their duty to abstain from animal food, and perhaps also from wine (Rom_14:2, Rom_14:21); and there is allusion also to observance of certain days (Rom_14:5). The views that have been taken are as follows:—
(1) That they were the same class of Jewish Christians as are spoken of in 1Co_8:1-13. as over-scrupulous about eating of things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols.
(2) That they were such as were scrupulous in avoiding unclean meats, forbidden in the Mosaic Law. (Or, as Erasmus and others suggest, views (1) and (2) may be combined.)
(3) That they were ascetics.
In favour of view
(1) is the fact that the drift and tone of the exhortation is exactly the same here as in 1Co_8:1-13., with similarity also of expressions, such as ὁ ἀσθενῶν , ὁ ἐσθίων βρῶσις βρῶμα ἀπολύειν πρόσκομμα , σκανδαλίζειν . Against it are the facts
(a) that in the chapter before us there is no allusion whatever to idol-meats, as there is throughout so markedly in 1Co_8:1-13.; and
(b) that abstinence from all animal food whatever (and apparently from wine too) is spoken of in this chapter. Objection (a) has been met by saying that the ground of the scrupulosity referred to might be so well known that St. Paul did not think it necessary to mention it when he wrote to the Romans. To objection (b) it is replied that there might be some who, in order to guard against the risk of buying at the shambles, or partaking in general society of viands connected with heathen sacrifices, made a point of abstaining from meat altogether, and (it has been suggested) from wine too, which might have been used in libations. This is the view of Clement of Alexandria, Ambrosiastor, and Augustine, among the ancients.
View (2) is that of Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, among whom Chrysostom accounts for the total abstinence from meat as follows: "There were many of the Jews that believed, who, being still bound in conscience to the Law, even after believing still observed the ordinances about meats, not as yet venturing to depart from the Law; and then, in order not to be conspicuous in abstaining from swine's flesh only, they abstained from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that their practice might seem to be rather fasting, and not observance of the Law" (so also OEcumenius and Theophylact). But this seems to be a conjecture only, and hardly a likely one. And further, it fails to account for abstinence from wine, which seems to be implied; on the part of tome at least, in verse 21.
If the weak brethren were ascetics, according to view (3), it is most probable that they were Jewish Christians who had imbibed the principles of the Essenes. These were a Jewish sect, spoken of especially by josephus, who aimed at scrupulous observance of the Law of Moses, and strict personal purity. With this view they lived in communities under rule, partaking of the simplest fare, and some abstaining from marriage. It does not appear that they were strict vegetarians when living in community; but we are told that they might only eat such meat as had been prepared by their own members, so as to be secure against any pollution, and that, if excommunicated, they were consequently compelled to eat herbs. (For what is known of them, see Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 2.; 8.2-5; 'Ant.,' 13.5. 9; 15.10. 4, 5; 18.1. 2, etc.; Philo, 'Quod Omnis Probus Liber,' see. 12., etc.; Pliny, 'Hist. Nat.,' 5.16, 17.) It is far from unlikely that some of these would be attracted to Christianity; and this especially as some of their principles, as described by Josephus, seem to have been endorsed by Christ himself; and, if so, they would be likely to carry their prejudices with them into the Church, and, when living outside their original communities, they might abstain entirely from flesh as well as wine. Or it might be that other Jews, Essenic in principle and feeling, had sought admission into the Church. Philo, in Eusebius, 'Praep. Evan.,' 8. fin., and Josephus, 'Vit.,' 2. 3, intimate that supra-legal asceticism, under the influence of Essenic principles, was not uncommon in Judaism in their time. The latter (c. 3) speaks of certain priests, his friends, who were so God-fearing that they subsisted on figs and nuts, and (c. 2) of one Banns, who had been his master, who ate no food but vegetables. What is still more to our purpose is that we find evidence of pious ascetics of the same type subsequently among Christians. Origen ('Contra Cels.,' 5.49) speaks of some as living in his time; and even the apostle St. Matthew, and James the Lord's brother, were afterwards credited with a corresponding mode of life. Clement of Alexandria ('Paedag.' 2.1) says of the former, "Matthew the apostle partook of seeds and acorns and herbs, without flesh." Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (Mat_2:23), says of the latter that "he drank not wine or strong drinks, nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath." It is to be observed that abstinence from ointments was one of the practices of the Essenes (Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 8.2. 3). Augustine ('Ad Faust.,' 22.3) transmits the same tradition as to the abstinence of James from flesh and wine. Whatever foundation them might be for these traditions, they at any rate show that in the second century, when Hegesippus wrote, abstinence such as is intimated in this chapter was regarded as a mark of superior sanctity by some Christians. Farther, in the 'Apostolical Canons' (Canon 51.), Christians who abstained from marriage, or flesh, or wine, are allowed to be retained in the communion of the Church as long as they did so by way of religious restraint only. Against the above view of the weak brethren of the chapter before us having been ascetics of the Essenic type, is alleged the strong condemnation of persons supposed to have been of the same sort in Col_2:8, Col_2:16, seq., and 1Ti_4:1-5, which is said to be inconsistent with the tender tolerance recommended here. But the teachers referred to in the later Epistles, though inculcating practices similar to those of the "weak brethren," appear to have been heretical theosophists, the germ probably of later Gnosticism. Their tenets may indeed, in part at least, have been developed from Esseuism; but it was no longer mere conscientious scrupulosity, but principles subversive of the faith, that St. Paul set his face against in writing to the Colossians and to Timothy. Canon 51. in the 'Apostolical Canons' above referred to may be adduced as distinguishing between the principles on which asceticism might be practised allowably or otherwise; it being therein laid down that any who abstained from marriage, flesh, or' wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, should be cast out of the Church.
It remains to be observed that there was diffused among the Gentiles also, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, an asceticism similar to the Essenic, which Eichhoru supposes the "weak brethren" of this chapter to have been affected by, regarding them as mostly Gentile Christians. But Jewish influences are much more probable; the scruples referred to in 1Co_8:1-13. were certainly due to them; and observe 1Co_8:5 in this chapter, which cannot but refer to Jewish observances. Further, Origen, in the treatise above referred to, expressly distinguishes between Christian and Pythagorean asceticism. His words are, "But see also the difference of the cause of the abstinence from creatures having life as practised by the Pythagoreans and by the ascetics among ourselves. For they abstain because of the fable concerning the transmigration of souls;… but we, though we may practise the like, do it when we keep under the flesh and bring it into subjection" ('Contra Cels.,' 4).
Rom_14:1
Him that is weak in the faith (rather, in faith, or in his faith). The article before πίστει does not denote the faith objectively. Cf. Rom_4:19, μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῆ πίστει . In 1Co_8:12 it is the conscience that is spoken of as weak, τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν . Persons are meant whose faith is not sufficiently strong and enlightened for entering fully into the true spirit of the gospel so as to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. Receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations; rather, unto—i.e., so as to result in—judgments of thoughts. The Authorized Version has in margin, "to judge his doubtful thoughts," which is probably nearer the true meaning than the text. Διαρίσις means elsewhere dijudicartio (1Co_12:10; Heb_5:14), not "disputation" or "doubt" (as has been supposed from the verb διακρίνεσθαι , meaning "to doubt"). "Non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur".
Rom_14:2, Rom_14:3
One believeth that he may eat all things (literally, believeth to—or, hath faith to—eat all things), but he that is weak eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. "He that eateth" is the one that has faith to eat all things; and it is against contempt on his part of the weak in faith that the admonition is mainly directed throughout the chapter (cf. also Rom_15:1). But the weak require an admonition too. Their temptation was to judge those who indulged in freedom which to themselves appeared unlawful; and here, in Rom_14:5, the apostle gives such as did so a sharp reproof. There is a tone of indignation in his σὺ τίς εἷ ὁ κρίνων ; reminding us of his tone towards the Judaists in Galatia, who would have crippled Christian liberty. "God hath received him" refers evidently, as appears from its position and from the following verse, to him that eateth. God hath received him to himself in Christ, whosoever may sit in judgment on him. We observe that the verb προσελάβετο is the same as in Rom_14:1 and in Rom_15:7.
Rom_14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? (observe the emphatic position of σὺ ) to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand: for the Lord (better supported than God, as in the Textus Receptus) is able (or, has power) to make him stand. The standing or falling here spoken of may be taken to mean standing firm in, or falling from, a state of grace (cf. Rom_11:20, Rom_11:22), rather than acceptance or rejection at the last judgment. "For God is able," etc., seems to require this meaning. The non-abstainer's freedom does not endanger his position; for God is powerful to sustain him, and to God alone he is accountable.
Rom_14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike in his own mind. To St. Paul himself the observance or non-observance of the days referred to was a matter in itself of no importance. He was content that each person should act up to his own conscientious convictions on the subject.
Rom_14:6
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord (omit, as ill-supported, as well as unnecessary, and he that regardeth not, etc.); he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Both parties are supposed to be equally desirous of serving God. The eater of whatsoever is set before him is so, as is shown by his thanking God for it—observe "for he giveth," etc.—and no creature of God can be polluting "if received with thanksgiving" (1Ti_4:5); the abstainer gives thanks too; and so his dinner of herbs is also hallowed to him. (Though it is not necessary to confine the thought to the practice of saying grace before meat, this is doubtless in view as expressing the asserted thankfulness. For proof of the custom, cf. Mat_15:36; Act_27:35; 1Co_10:30; 1Co_11:24; 1Ti_4:4, 1Ti_4:5.) The general principle on which, in eating and drinking, as in all beside, Christians are of necessity supposed to act, and which both parties are to be credited with desiring to carry out, is set forth in Rom_14:7, Rom_14:8, Rom_14:9, which follow.
Rom_14:7, Rom_14:8
For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. For 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. The mention of dying as well as living unto the Lord, though it does not seem needed by the context, makes complete the view of the entire devotion of redeemed Christians to him; and introduces the thought, which follows, of their union with him in his own death as well as in his life.
Rom_14:9
For to this end Christ both died and lived (so certainly, rather than, as in the Textus Receptus, died, and rose, and revived. His living means here his entering on the heavenly life after the human death), that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. "Nam mortem pro salute nostra obeundo dominium sibi acquisivit quod nec morte solveretur; resurgendo autem totam vitam nostram in peculium accepit; morte igitur et resurrectione sua promeritus est ut tam in morte quam in vita gloriae nominis ejus serviamus" (Calvin). For the idea of this whole passage (Rom_14:7-9), cf. 1Co_6:20; 1Co_7:23; 2Co_5:15.
The apostle now returns to his immediate subject, warning (as in 2Co_5:3) the one party against judging and the other against despising, on the ground of all alike having to abide hereafter the Divine judgment (cf. Mat_7:1, seq.; 1Co_4:3, 1Co_4:5). The distinction in 2Co_5:10 between the two parties, marked in the original by the initial Σὺ δὲ and the following ἢ καὶ σὺ , is somewhat lost in our Authorized Version.
Rom_14:10-13
But thou, why judgest thou thy brother? or thou too, why settest thou at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God (so, rather than of Christ, as in the Textus Receptus). For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (Isa_45:23, quoted very freely from the LXX.). So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us therefore no longer judge one another. This concluding appeal is addressed to both parties. In all that follows St. Paul returns exclusively to the more enlightened ones, whose feelings were in accordance with his own; and he now presses a further thought upon them, namely of the harm they might be doing to the very souls of the weak ones by tempting them, either by word or example, to disobey their own consciences. But judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling ( σκάνδαλον ). For the meaning of the word, cf. Luk_17:1; Romans:33; Rom_16:17; 1Co_1:23; Rev_2:14.
Rom_14:14
I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. To him it becomes defiling, because partaking of it defiles his conscience (cf. 1Co_8:7).
Rom_14:15
For ( γὰρ here certainly, rather than δὲ as in the Textus Receptus. It introduces a reason for the general admonition beginning at Rom_14:13) if on account of meat (not here, thy meat, as in the Authorized Version) thy brother is grieved, thou no longer walkest charitably (literally, according to love, or charity; i.e. in continuing to set at naught his conscientious scruples). With thy meat destroy not him, for whom Christ died (cf. 1Co_8:11, Καὶ ἀπολεῖται ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἀδελφὸς … δἰ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ). "Destroy" seems to denote causing his moral and religious ruin by shaking his conscientiousness, and perhaps upsetting altogether the faith he has, which, though weak, is real.
Rom_14:16
Let not then your good be evil spoken of. "Your good" is your enlightenment, which is in itself a good thing; but it will be "evil spoken of" as a bad thing, if it leads to superciliousness and uncharitableness.
Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18
For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. The concluding clause here has reference to "let not your good," etc., preceding. It is the practical fruits of faith that commend it to men, as well as being the test of its genuineness before God.
Rom_14:19-21
Let us therefore follow after the things that make for (literally, the things of) peace, and the things wherewith one may edify another (literally, the things of the edification of one another). For meat's sake destroy not the work of God. "Destroy," or rather, overthrow—the word is κατάλυε , not ἀππόλλυε as in Rom_14:15—is connected in thought with the edification, or building up ( οἰκοδομήν ) before spoken of. "The work of God" is that of his grace in the weak Christian's soul, growing, it may be, to full assurance of faith (cf. 1Co_3:9," ye are God's building"). Upset not the rising structure, which is God's own, as ye may do by putting a stumbling-block in the weak brother's way. All things indeed are pure (i.e. in themselves all God's gifts given for man's service are so); but it is evil to that man who eateth with offence (i.e. if the eating be to himself a stumbling-block. The idea is the same as in Rom_14:14). It is good ( καλὸν , not of indispensable obligation, but a right and noble thing to do) neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. The concluding words in italics are of doubtful authority: they are not required for the sense. For St. Paul's expression of his own readiness to deny himself lawful things, if he might so avoid offence to weak brethren, cf. 1Co_8:13.
Rom_14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Hast thou an enlightened faith, showing thee the unimportance of these observances? Do not parade it needlessly before men. Θέλεις μαι δεῖξαι ὄτι τέλειος εἶ καὶ ἀπηρτισμένος μὴ ἐμοὶ δείκνοε ἀλλ ἀρκείτω τὸ συνειδός (Chrysostom). Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Thy weak brother, if he abstains conscientiously, is thus happy; take care that thou art equally so in the exercise of thy freedom; for he that alloweth himself in anything that he is not fully convinced is lawful passes, ipso facto, judgment on himself.
Rom_14:23
But he that doubteth (or, wavereth) is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For sense of διακρίνεσθαι , cf. Rom_4:20; Mat_21:21; Mar_11:23; Jas_1:6. Faith here denotes an assured belief that what one does is right; nor is it necessary to give the word a wider or different sense in the concluding clause ( Ταῦτα δὲ πάντα περὶ τῆς προκειμένης ὑποθεσεως εἴρηται τῷ Παῦλῳ οὔ περὶ πάντων , Chrysostom). Hence to see in it (as has been done) the doctrine of the sinfulness of all works done apart from faith in Christ is to introduce an idea that is not there.
I. THE PRINCIPLE. Our actions should be with a view to the Lord Christ. The motive of Christian conduct is the love of Christ; its aim is the glory of Christ. The personal relation between the Saviour and his people is not such as to lose anything of its dignity and sacredness, when introduced as a motive into the ordinary activity of Christian people. And this principle, so lofty on its Divine side, is most practical upon the human side. Love to Christ, and sympathy with his self-denial, leads his followers to regard the welfare of their brethren, for whom Christ died. Thus Christ's sacrifice becomes the inspiration and the model of ours.
II. THE OUTWORKING OF THE PRINCIPLE. Two special illustrations are mentioned in this passage, from which we may learn how to apply the great Christian law to the varying circumstances of human life.
1. Eating and drinking are necessary acts; but the manner of eating and drinking have often been regarded as associated with religion. Some of the early Christians were so scrupulous that they would eat no flesh, lest they should inadvertently eat what had been offered to idols; others never troubled themselves to inquire about their food. The apostle decides that neither flesh-eater nor herb-eater must despise the other. If each is animated by a regard to God's glory and to Christ's kingdom, each deserves respect and esteem.
2. The observance of sacred days has usually been an outward mark of the religious. Of the primitive Christians some regarded and others disregarded such days. The apostle blamed neither party; if they did what they did conscientiously, and unto the Lord, this was enough. It is not in such observances that true religion consists; but in the spirit that governs actions, and the intention with which they are undertaken.
III. THE UNIVERSAL APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE. Occasions are continually arising for remembering the wise counsel of St. Paul. Zealous religionists are wont to push their own views, and zealous controversialists are given to attacking the doctrines and practices of others. Men substitute human dogmas, human fancies, and human remedies for moral and social ills, for the great principles of Christianity. But we shall do well to be guided by liberty for one's self, by consideration for one's neighbours, and by charity with reference to the conduct of our fellow-Christians.
Rom_14:7
I. WHAT IS ENTRUSTED BY THE CREATOR.
1. Life itself; the successive years and stages of which it is composed.
2. Its advantages; both the capacities and endowments which are natural, and the education and associations which Providence has secured to us.
3. Its opportunities; both of acquiring good and of doing good. It is to be remembered that, strictly speaking, it is not for these, but for the use we make of them, that we are responsible. We are to bear in mind that, though we live, we do not live unto ourselves.
II. HOW THE TRUST SHOULD BE DISCHARGED.
1. The motive and law of this discharge and fulfilment of trust we are to find in Christ. Our life will be lived aright, if its principle be grateful love to him who loved us; if his Spirit and example be our inspiration, if his glory and approval be our aim and hope.
2. The range within which this trust should be fulfilled is a wide one, including our fellow-men, for whom Christ died. In the household, in professional and business life, in the Church, in the nation, the Christian finds a sphere for consistent and unselfish service. The lessons of the parable of the talents may be appropriately studied in this connection.
III. THAT THE TRUST INVOLVES RETRIBUTION. Christ is a Judge as well as a Lord.
Our life must be tested by his scrutinizing, searching eye, his just and faithful judgment. Fidelity will be rewarded, unfaithfulness will be condemned, by him. For the faithful, the unselfish, the benevolent, the serviceable, there is secured the blessed prospect of sharing "the joy of their Lord."
Rom_14:7-9
I. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. We "live unto the Lord." This personal relation between the Saviour and those who are saved by him is a distinctive feature of the new and Christian life. When we consider this expression, what do we find it to involve?
1. We live as in the Lord's sight, with his wise, observant, just, and yet friendly eye upon us.
2. We live under the motive and inspiration of the Lord's love and sacrifice. He has lived and died for us; we live and die unto him.
3. We live in obedience to his will; as the scholar lives to his master, the soldier to his general, the statesman to his country or his king.
4. We live with the help of his Spirit.
5. We live to our Lord's glory; losing sight of all that concerns ourselves, and become absorbed in and devoted to the extension of Christ's kingdom, and the honour of Christ's name. Even thus we do not exhaust the fulness of this noble utterance, "We live unto the Lord."
II. THE RANGE OF THE CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.
1. Life, in all its varied experiences, in all its successive stages, is to the Christian life unto the Lord. No aspect, no period, no interest, is exempt; it is the joy of Christ's servant to devote all energies, and to consecrate all influence, that life confers, unto him who redeemed life and made it a new and blessed thing.
2. Death is embraced within the wide range of this principle. An uninspired writer would not have ventured upon so sublime a representation as this. But Paul, who said, "To me to live is Christ," was constrained to add, "To die is gain." So here he says, "We die unto the Lord." This was obviously and beautifully true of those who perished in the discharge of offices suggested by Christian benevolence, and of those who "resisted unto blood, striving against sin," who died as martyrs, as witnesses to the truth. Yet none of any age or condition of life, who died in the discharge of duty however ordinary, were exempt from this privilege of dying unto Christ. It was doubtless often asked concerning a departed brother, "By what death did he glorify God?"
III. THE DIVINE POWER UNDERLYING THIS PRINCIPLE. A principle so contrary to selfish human nature can only be accounted for by a Divine interposition and provision. The apostle traces this:
1. In Christ's death, and:
2. In his resurrection, in virtue of which he has become to man not only the universal Saviour, but the universal Lord.
Rom_14:12
I. THE FACT OF JUDGMENT. It is a fact to which conscience, and the constitution of human nature and human society, undeviatingly testify. Men sometimes strive to forget it, but seldom venture to deny it.
1. Judgment involves a Divine Judge. God will judge the world by Jesus Christ, a Judge qualified, both by his Divine knowledge and his human sympathy, for fulfilling this awful office.
2. Judgment involves an accountable moral nature on the part of those who are subjected to it. Man is so fashioned that it is just that he should be judged, He has knowledge of right and wrong, power of independent action arising from his voluntary nature, and the capacity to appreciate inducements to righteousness.
3. Judgment, always a fact, will in the future be explicit, pronounced, and manifested. Doubtless the Judge observes, approves, and censures every day; but there will be a period in which this shall be apparent. "The day will declare it!"
II. THE UNIVERSALITY OF JUDGMENT. Wherever is a moral nature, amenable to law, there responsibility exists, and there the judicial exercise of Divine authority shall take place. Babes, idiots, madmen, are not subject to moral accountability; but all beside—according to light and privilege—must appear for retribution before the bar of God. None is so high in this world as to be superior to justice; none is so low as to escape it. The omniscience of Deity cannot be deceived; the justice of Deity cannot be evaded.
III. THE INDIVIDUALITY OF JUDGMENT.
1. Each shall stand alone at the bar; every one shall give account of himself. In this sense, "every man shall bear his own burden." For his own character, and for his own acts, shall each separate person be held responsible.
2. None shall escape responsibility by casting blame upon Providence, by pleading that he was not favourably circumstanced, that he was not one of "the elect."
3. Nor can any evade judgment by throwing the blame of his sin upon society. The influence of others makes human life a discipline, but it does not reduce it to irresponsible mechanism.
4. Nor can any escape by casting censure upon the Church. Whether or not professing Christians have done their duty by one another, the fact of individual responsibility remains unaffected.
APPLICATION.
1. TO all hearers of the gospel this fact is a reason for accepting the good tidings of reconciliation.
2. To all Christians it supplies a motive to watchfulness and diligence.
Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18
I. CHRISTIANITY CREATES A SPIRITUAL KINGDOM. It is not, like many human religions, a system of regulations as to conduct or observances. It is not "eating and drinking." It is a kingdom conceived in the Divine mind, and worthy of its Divine Author; a kingdom established upon the mediation of a Divine Saviour; a kingdom consisting in the rule of spiritual powers and principles. It is a kingdom over spiritual natures, acting by spiritual agencies, and issuing in spiritual subjection and obedience. At the same time, it is a kingdom whose subjects are governed in their whole life by the power it introduces and applies to the inner nature. It is a kingdom in a measure realized in human society, and destined to be perfected in the glorious future.
III. THE SPECIAL CHARACTERS OF THIS KINGDOM.
1. In relation to God—righteousness. His law of justice is obeyed. Introduced into right and harmonious relations with the supreme Ruler, the subject of the kingdom practises righteousness in human relationships. Righteousness is what man was made for, or is what the Christian attains to.
2. In relation to men—peace. Strife and hatred are the curse of human society. Christianity alone has discovered and applied the principle which remedies this evil. True peace is based on righteousness, on the prevalence of those principles which are in harmony with the nature of God and the constitution of human society.
3. In the heart of the subject—joy. Cheerfulness, serenity, happiness,—these are the portion of the sincere believer in Christ, the loyal subject of Christ. "Rejoice evermore!" is the Christian admonition; "alway rejoicing!" is the Christian motto. The power of the Holy Spirit accounts for this change from the forced gaiety of the worldling, and the cold gloom of the sceptic, to the gladness of him who is at peace with God, and who cherishes a good hope of eternal life.
III. THE RESULTS OF THIS KINGDOM. These are very fully stated in Rom_14:18.
1. Christ is served. If he is the Lord and Head of the kingdom, this must be so. His Name is honoured and his cause promoted where truly Christian virtues prevail.
2. God is pleased. For the purposes of his holy benevolence are fulfilled, and his Son is glorified and his creatures blessed.
3. The approval of men is secured. It cannot be otherwise when dispositions and practices prevail which are corrective of human ills and promotive of human rectitude, concord, and happiness.
Rom_14:18
I. WHAT CHRISTIAN SERVICE IS.
1. It involves a personal relation between Master and servant.
2. It involves an acknowledgment of Divine authority.
3. It involves a powerful motive to a consecrated life.
4. It involves the inclusion of all activities and relationships within its sphere.
II. SUCH SERVICE IS WELL PLEASING TO GOD.
1. For it resembles that of Christ himself, who came to do the will of him who sent him, and who "pleased the Father alway," in whom the Father was "well pleased."
2. It is in conformity to the Divine will. It is the prerogative of the spiritual nature of man that it is capable of apprehending and voluntarily accepting and obeying the perfect will of God.
3. It tends to the Divine glory. This is by no other means so effectively promoted as by the willing consecration to the Lord of all intelligent and moral natures.
III. SUCH SERVICE IS APPROVED OF MEN.
1. Even those who do not render it themselves, approve it in others.
2. Even those who verbally censure, in their inner conscience commend it.
3. Legislators and rulers approve it, as contributive to the harmony and just development of human society at large.
I. THE CHRISTIAN'S DEPENDENCE. "None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For 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. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living" (Rom_14:7-9). There is no such thing as absolute independence. The relation of each individual to Christ, dependence on him and responsibility to him, is here asserted.
1. We depend upon the Lord's death. In the cross is our hope of forgiveness, pardon, cleansing.
2. We depend upon the Lord's resurrection. In his resurrection is our hope and assurance of the life and immortality beyond. "Because I live, ye shall live also."
3. We depend upon the Lord's continual intercession. In his intercession is our hope and assurance of answered prayer.
4. We depend upon the Lord's continued gifts to us. The Lord's day; the Word of the Lord; the Lord's house; the Lord's Supper;—how much our spiritual life is dependent upon these precious blessings provided for us by our Lord and Master! "Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."
5. This dependence upon Christ brings with it corresponding obligations. "Ye are not your own, for ye are bedight with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1Co_6:20).
II. THE CHRISTIAN'S INDEPENDENCE. The independence of the Christian is the correlative of his dependence. He is dependent upon Christ, and therefore he is:
1. Independent of external circumstances. "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." And again, "We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed." Even death can bring no alarm to those who can say, "We are the Lord's;" for Christ is the Conqueror of death.
2. Independent of human criticism. "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him" (Rom_14:3); "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or faileth" (Rom_14:4); "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom_14:5). Here the apostle asserts the great principle of liberty of conscience, and inculcates the great duty of charity and toleration. Alas! how often the principle and the duty have been forgotten in the Christian Church! Christian men have excommunicated one another and treated one another as enemies because they differed on some minor detail of doctrine, of government, or of worship.. Even the Protestant Churches, and Protestant Christians, one of whose distinctive principles is liberty of conscience, have sometimes failed to extend to others that toleration which they claim for themselves. "God alone is Lord of the conscience," says the Westminster Confession of Faith, "and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men."—C.H.I.
Rom_14:7
I. THE INFLUENCE WHICH ONE MAN MAY EXERCISE FOR GOOD. Many who would like to do good are sometimes disposed to say, "What use can I be in the world? What influence can my life have upon others? What good can I do to others? I am too young. I am too humble. I have no intellectual gifts. I have no opportunities such as some people have of exercising influence upon others." This is to underestimate the influence of the individual life. Whether we are conscious of it or not, the life of each of us, whether we are rich or poor, learned or unlearned, young or old, is exercising some influence upon others. It is not necessary that we should know another in order to exercise an influence upon him. Thousands of men are influenced by persons whom they never saw. The Reformation began at Cambridge University very early in the sixteenth century by Bilney, a solitary student, reading a Greek Testament with Latin translation and notes, which Erasmus had published. Bilney had never seen Erasmus, but the quiet work of Erasmus was the means of bringing Bilney to the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus. Bilney, again, influenced Latimer, who was one of the fathers of the English Reformation, and who suffered martyrdom for the truth. Thus the Reformation in England may be largely traced to the quiet work of Erasmus as he sat at his desk, and used his vast learning and intellect to make the Word of God more familiar to the people of his time. A young American student, more than seventy years ago, happened to read a printed sermon which had fallen into his hands. The sermon was entitled "The Star in the East," by Dr. Claudius Buchanan, and described the progress of the gospel in India, and the evidence there afforded of its Divine power. That sermon, by a man whom he had never seen, fell into the young student's soul like a spark into tinder, and in six months Adoniram Judson resolved to become a missionary to the heathen. That little printed sermon, preached in England, perhaps, with no apparent fruit, became, through God's blessing, the beginning of the great work of American foreign missions. You may not be an Erasmus or a Claudius Buchanan. But God may have as great a work for you to do as he had for them. What an influence for good Christian parents may exercise upon their children, with far-reaching results to the world! The faithful sabbath-school teacher may leaven with gospel truth young minds that may yet control the destinies of a nation. Young women, by the power of their own Christian character, may change for the better the muddy current of many a godless life. The great matter is for every one of us to live near to God, to cultivate a Christ-like character, and then our life is sure to be a blessing. You must walk with God if you would have weight with men. Personal holiness is the key to personal influence for good.
II. THE INFLUENCE WHICH ONE MAN MAY EXERCISE FOR EVIL, The wise man says, "One sinner destroyeth much good." Everyday experience will supply many illustrations of this truth. One bad man, one bad woman, will be a centre of corruption to the whole circle in which they move. One bad boy often corrupts a whole school. How terrible is the power of evil to propagate itself! How terrible is the guilt of those who have become the corrupters of others! The evil that we do has consequences far beyond the injury that we may do to ourselves.
Unto a loving mother oft
We all have sent, without a doubt,
Full many a hard and careless word,
That now we never can rub out;
For cruel words cut deeper far
Than diamond on the window-pane;
And, oft recalled in after-years,
They wound her o'er and o'er again.
"So, in our daily walk and life,
We write and do and say the thing
We never can undo nor stay
With any future sorrowing.
We carve ourselves on beating hearts!
Ah! then, how wise to pause and doubt,
To blend with love and thought our words,
Because we cannot rub them out!"
The great poet of Scotland, Robert Burns, on his dying bed wished that he could have recalled some of the foolish things that he had written. But it was too late. Better far to leave the wrong undone than afterwards to regret the doing of it. "None of us liveth to himself," should be constantly before our minds as a restraining memory to keep us from evil, and an inspiring memory that will cheer us on to make the world better than we have found it.—C.H.I.
Rom_14:10-23 (with Rom_15:1-3)
I. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY. Where we differ from our fellow-Christians in details of doctrine, worship, or practice, we are very prone to be uncharitable in our judgments. We are inclined to doubt their Christianity because they do not just see as we do on such matters. One great fact the apostle would have us remember when we are tempted to condemn our brethren. It is the fact of the judgement to come. "Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ" (Rom_14:10). "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more" (Rom_14:12, Rom_14:13). It is not we who are to be the judges of our fellow-Christians, but God. We should not like that they would be our judges: then why should we judge them? The thought that we ourselves must stand before a higher judgment-seat, where all our sins and secret thoughts and unchristian motives shall be known, should make us more cautious in our condemnation of others. And, as regards our fellow-Christians, is it not enough for us that God will judge them? Surely we may leave their trial with confidence in his hands.
II. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN SELF-DENIAL. There is a gradual progress in the principles here laid down. First of all, it is shown that we ought not to judge our brethren. This is a purely negative command. The next command is somewhat more positive. "But judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way" (Rom_14:13). The apostle enforces the exhortation to Christian self-denial by three special reasons.
1. The Christian should not injure those whom Christ has died to save. "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died" (Rom_14:15). This is the true basis of total abstinence. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak" (Rom_14:21).
2. The Christian has higher enjoyments than those of selfish indulgence. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom_14:17). The giving up of a merely bodily comfort or enjoyment should not be a great hardship to the Christian. God is able to give us much more than this.
3. The example of Christ is an example of self-denial. "For even Christ pleased not himself" (Rom_15:3). Self-denial is an essential part of truly following Christ. "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." This law of Christian self-denial covers a wide field. Not merely abstinence from meats and drinks, from bodily indulgences which do harm to others; but also to put a bridle on our tongues, lest by our words we should give offence to others; to abstain from gratifying even lawful desires and wishes where the attainment of our purpose would cause pain or injury to others;—this is self-denial, this is to follow the example of Christ. Self-pleasing is a besetting sin with most of us.
III. THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN HELPFULNESS. Here the apostle takes another forward step. Here he states a still higher principle. "Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another" (Rom_14:19); "Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification" (Rom_15:2). Here is the truly positive principle of Christian life. The Christian life should not be merely an abstinence from evil, but a positive doing of what is good. We should not merely refrain from injuring our neighbours, but we should be actively engaged, as Christians, in rendering them all the spiritual help we can. As a rule, our Christianity is negative rather than positive. It is too selfish. Many Christians are perfectly content with attaining the salvation of their own souls, and going through the world as harmlessly as possible. This, after all, is but a low type of Christianity True Christianity, the Christianity of the sermon on the mount, is as the salt, the light, the leaven; an active, helpful, beneficent influence upon those around us.—C.H.I.
I. THE DUTY OF THE WEAK. The weaker man had his scruples; his strong judgments as to this or that mode of outward living being right, and this or that wrong. And he was quick to condemn the man whose opinions and practices were unlike his own. Not so, says the apostle.
1. He has another Master. Certainly he has yielded himself to Christ, and Christ, not another, must measure the fidelity of his service. If faithful, he abides his servant; if unfaithful, he falls. But he shall not fall. The heart is right, and even if the freedom of outward observance were a mistaken freedom, Christ is not such a Master as to cast him off for a mistake. No; "he shall be made to stand." Is not this the determining principle of the Christian life? Not the minute observance, right or wrong, but the motive, makes the Christian man. It matters nothing comparatively whether we eat or do not eat, whether we observe days or observe them not, whether we live or die: "none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself." The aim of the whole life is Christ-wards, and the aim, not the details, determines the life.
2. He has another Judge. This follows from the former. If Christ be the Master now, he shall judge the service itself at the last. And if we may not measure the fidelity of another's servant, neither may we pass sentence on his deeds. No; "the day shall declare it, and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is" (1Co_3:13). For it is true that the details of the life will be taken into account, but not by our brethren: "Each one of us shall give account of himself to God."
II. THE DUTY OF THE STRONG. So, then, the weak are warned not to judge the men of liberty; and the men of liberty, men of strength as they thought themselves, are to show their strength by gentleness, and their liberty by self-sacrifice. For the conscience of the weak, if erring, was to be respected, and neither were they to be grieved by a needless exhibition of the liberty of the strong, nor above all led to sin against their convictions by the example or ridicule of the preponderant party.
1. They were not to be grieved. Could the stronger ones ruthlessly cause pain to the scrupulous ones by their own seeming unscrupulousness? That was not walking in love. And for the sake of showing that they could eat meat! Away the thought: this was not God's kingdom. Let them rather know that, eating or not eating, to respect the rights of others, to have peace with all, and to rejoice with a common joy in God,—this was God's kingdom. So also would their spirit commend itself to men and to God. Christians then indeed; as Christ died for the weaker ones, so they sacrificing their liberty for them.
2. They were not to be made to fall. Let them know that, innocent as their eating of flesh might be, it was not innocent to the doubting man, and each one's conscience must approve his own deeds, or he is condemned. Nay, he falls! Oh, surely they were not prepared for that? For this was, not merely to destroy the weak brother's peace and charity of heart, but to overthrow the work of God in him! And all for the sake of meat! Better sacrifice all your liberty than this. Have your faith to yourself; have all tender solicitude for your weak brother's conscience.
Then receive the brother, care for him, sacrifice your freedom for him. For while faith, liberty, strength, are good, the best of all is love!—T.F.L.
I. EACH HAS TO SETTLE SUCH QUESTIONS FOR HIMSELF. "Let each be assured in his own mind." Others cannot do our part in investigation and decision. No one is authorized to come between us and God in such matters; even the apostle does not intrude on the province of several