Romans 14 commentary

ROMA S 14 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
I TRODUCTIO
This passage deals with a number of paradoxes. Can the same action or behavior be
both good and evil? Can what is right also be wrong? Can what I enjoy and thank
God for, be a sin for you to enjoy? Can I do something that is okey with God, but it
still becomes a sin?
How are we to know the will of God with any certainty? The will of God falls into
three categories that help us discern his will. A person going to a doctor and getting
the doctors advice illustrates the point.
When Christians of equal love for Christ and His Word, and with equal
intelligence have different convictions on what is right and wrong, how are we
to know who is right, and who best knows the will of God? Romans 14 is
Paul's struggle with this issue. He helps us see some principles to use in
making decisions. The over all breakdown is this:
1. God permits some things-verse 2.
2. God prescribes some things-verse 3.
3. God prohibits some things-verse 13.
HOKE, “There seems to be something within each of us that wants to set up rules of
conduct — laws for living. We would like to have a simple answer for every
situation we face. But some situations are not that simple.”
We want simple answers to every issue, but that is unrealistic, for there are no
simple answers to many issues. It is because people see things from different
perspectives and with different backgrounds and different interests and goals.
Christians are on all sides of political issues and many are Democrats and many are
Republicans and many are Independents. They are divided on many social issues,
and just about every issues there is you will find Christians on opposite sides.
Why is it that Christians are usually on both sides of most every controversial issue?
Differences are inevitable because of different backgrounds and traditions. James
W. Crawford writes,
"There is a broad range of members in that church: Jews, gentiles, men
and women of various religious background, or no religious background--a
miniature of cosmopolitan Rome. The conflict seems to bubble up
between members who practice their piety in different ways. There
is, on the one hand, what we might call a conservative

camp. The conservatives believe that in order to be true
to the faith and their religious identity they must adhere to
a rigid diet, make certain days sacrosanct, dress in a particular
fashion, assemble their worship in a specific order. These practices,
they believe, are basic to the faithful expression of their religious
faith. On the other hand, what we will call the liberals, see these particular
practices as largely irrelevant. The liberals would make any day the Sabbath
as Christ had redeemed all the time. They set aside prayer rituals,
dietary laws, dress codes as being non-essential because of their
new freedom in Christ. And here's the rub: The conservative
faction looks on the liberal faction as permissive,
libertarian sellouts, finger-to-the- wind Christians, devoid
of discipline, accommodating to trends of the times, betrayers
of tradition. The liberals see the conservatives
as pinched, rigid, doctrinaire, confusing trivialities with the
real mandates of the Gospel, those who need mundane practices
to prop up their faith. As a result, the Roman congregation seethes
with mutual hostility and contempt. The separate factions deride,
mock, and malign each other. And for Paul, the worst thing they
do is to call into question the integrity of one another's faith.
If you don't do it my way, you're outside the pale. If you
don't believe the way I do, you're a heretic, a pagan, a religious
fraud.
It is always God's will that His children live in harmony with one another. Unity is
essential for there to be victory over the forces of darkness.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
(Psa.
133:1)
MARK COPELA D
1. An important part of the Christian life is getting along with
brethren...
a. Jesus prayed for unity among believers - Jn 17:20-23
b. Paul condemned division among Christians - 1 Co 1:10-13
c. Jesus died to make Jew and Gentile one new man and one body - Ep
2:14-16
2. Unity did not come easily in the early church...
a. Jewish Christians were reluctant to accept Gentile Christians
- cf. Ac 15:1-5
b. Knowledgeable Christians were not always considerate - cf. 1 Co
8:10-12
3. Unity does not come easily in the church today...
a. People come into the kingdom from all sorts of religious

backgrounds
b. Their level of knowledge, their rate of spiritual growth, varies
widely
Tom Roberts writes, "Our text to be analyzed, Romans
14:1-15:7, beautifully sets forth the parameters of our liberties in Christ. Counter-
balancing between the tendency to bind where God has not bound and giving license
to sin, this passage advocates fellowship through the respect of each brother's
liberties. Without the truth of these verses, Christians will be hopelessly splintered
in as many pieces as there are opinions or else be invaded by sinful doctrine and
practices The sufficiency of God's revelation clearly defines what is required and
forbidden 2 John 9-11; Jude 3). In these areas we have no choice but to obey. But
the sufficient revelation also establishes the category of things allowed, also known
as authorized liberties,options and expediencies,matters of indifference to God.
Here, we may allow differences among brethren without compromising any
principle of truth. The early preachers in America recognized this as they sought to
restore pure religion in their generation. Their cry was: In matters of faith, unity; in
matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity."
We see three categories of behaviour in this passage.
Things that are right=the commanded.
Things that are wrong=the forbidden.
Things that don’t matter=the permitted.
Some people say the first two are not right, for all is relative and you cannot put
anything as absolutely right or wrong. Others say the last one is not right for
everything is either black or white and nothing is relative. These both have one
thing in common, they are both wrong, for the Bible makes it clear there are
absolutes and their are relatives. Liberals question the first two and
conservatives the last one. If you are always a liberal, or always a conservative,
you will be always wrong at some point. Some things are always right and some
always wrong and some things that are always, or rather most always neutral. I
say most always, because Paul makes it clear that even something that is okey is
wrong if you hurt others by doing it. There is never anything wrong with
throwing a baseball, except when it is through my front window, or anybody
elses.
MACARTHUR, “How do we deal with the issues of life that are not moral in and of
themselves? Such issues as food, drink, recreation, television, movies, books,
magazines, sports, Sunday activities, cards, games, smoking, hair styles, clothing
styles, music styles, etc., etc.
I went away to college, at a very narrow, kind of circumscribed legalistic school, and
everything was reduced to rules. We had rules for everything. In fact, we used to say
the school song was, "I don't smoke, and I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that
do!" And that sort of summed up the whole approach to spiritual life. Everything

was reduced to some kind of list of things that were forbidden. That's pretty typical
for an older generation of Christians. That is pretty typical today for a more
contemporary church in other parts of the world. Certainly the church in Eastern
Europe has many traditions and many rules that binds its conduct in nonmoral
issues. One of the things that struck me as a fascinating thing about the Church in
the Soviet Union is that if you are really spiritual, you button all the buttons on your
coat. If you have any of them unbuttoned that is a sign of a lack of spirituality. If
you are sitting on the platform and your legs are crossed or your feet are crossed,
someone will poke you and say please uncross your legs or uncross your feet, that is
not a spiritual way to behave.
How do you act toward other believers when their behavior doesn’t meet your
standard? What do you do when you see a believer engaging in what you call
questionable activity? How do you react when someone tries to make you over into
their image? The issue is Liberty verses Legalism.
The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing
judgment on disputable matters.
BAR ES, “Him that is weak - The design here is to induce Christians to receive to
their fellowship those who had scruples about the propriety of certain things, or that
might have special prejudices and feelings as the result of education or former habits of
belief. The apostle, therefore, begins by admitting that such an one may be “weak,” that
is, not fully established, or not with so clear and enlarged views about Christian liberty
others might have.
In the faith - In believing. This does not refer to “saving faith” in Christ, for he might
have that; but to belief in regard “to the things which the apostle specifies,” or which
would come into controversy. Young converts have often a special delicacy or
sensitiveness about the lawfulness of many things in relation to which older Christians
may be more fully established. To produce peace, there must be kindness, tenderness,
and faithful teaching; not denunciation, or harshness, on one side or the other.
Receive ye - Admit to your society or fellowship: receive him kindly, not meet with a
cold and harsh repulse; compare Rom_15:7.
Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to
your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of
repelling him by denunciation; and thus, “by the natural reaction of such a course,”
confirming him in his doubts. Or, “do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a
tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc.” (Stuart.) The “leading” idea
here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of

a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples,
will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him
will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us,
to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to
overcome his scruples. In questions which now occur about modes of “dress,” about
“measures” and means of promoting revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by
far the wisest course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to induce him
to think as we do. Greek, “Unto doubts or fluctuations of opinions or reasonings.”
Various senses have been given to the words, but the above probably expresses the true
meaning.
CLARKE, “Him that is weak in the faith - By this the apostle most evidently means
the converted Jew, who must indeed be weak in the faith, if he considered this
distinction of meats and days essential to his salvation. See on Rom_14:21 (note).
Receive ye - Associate with him; receive him into your religious fellowship; but when
there, let all religious altercations be avoided.
Not to doubtful disputations - Μη εις διακρισεις δια λογισµων. These words have
been variously translated and understood. Dr. Whitby thinks the sense of them to be
this; Not discriminating them by their inward thoughts. Do not reject any from your
Christian communion because of their particular sentiments on things which are in
themselves indifferent. Do not curiously inquire into their religious scruples, nor
condemn them on that account. Entertain a brother of this kind rather with what may
profit his soul, than with curious disquisitions on speculative points of doctrine. A good
lesson for modern Christians in general.
GILL, “Him that is weak in the faith,.... This address is made to the stronger and
more knowing Christians among the Romans, how to behave towards those that were
inferior in light and knowledge to them, with regard to things of a ritual and ceremonial
kind: and by "him that is weak in the faith", is meant, either one that is weak in the
exercise of the grace of faith, who has but a glimmering sight of Christ; who comes to
him in a very feeble and trembling manner; who believes his ability to save him, but
hesitates about his willingness; who casts himself with a peradventure on him; and who
is attended with many misgivings of heart, faintings of spirit, and fluctuation of mind,
about his interest in him: or one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light
and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more
affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the
greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear
strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed
to and fro with every wind of doctrine: or rather one that is weak in his knowledge of that
branch of the doctrine of faith, which concerns Christian liberty; and that part of it
particularly, which respects freedom from the ceremonial law: it designs one, and chiefly
a Jew, who though a believer in Christ, and an embracer of the other truths of the
Gospel, yet had but very little knowledge of Gospel liberty; but though that believers
were to observe all the rituals of the Mosaic dispensation, not knowing that they were
abolished by Christ. The phrase is Jewish; it is (m) said,

"what is the meaning of the phrase, in Rephidim, Exo_17:1 it signifies such as are of
weak hands; as if it had been said, because the Israelites were ‫באמונ־תאם‬ ‫,רפים‬ "weak in their
faith".''
The advice the apostle gives, in reference to such a person, is to
receivereceivereceivereceive him; not only into their affections, and love him equally, being a believer in Christ, as one
of the same sentiments with them, only in this matter, but also into church fellowship with them.
The Syriac version reads it, ‫אידא‬ ‫ליה‬ ‫,הבו‬ "give him the hand": in token of communion, a form
used in admission of members. The Gentiles were apt to boast against, and look with some
contempt upon the Jews, and were ready to object to their communion, because of their want of
light and knowledge in these matters; but this was no bar of communion, nor ought a person to be
rejected on account of his weakness, either in the grace, or in the doctrine of faith, when it
appears he has the true grace of God; and much less on account of his weakness in that branch of
it, concerning Christian liberty; for since Christ does not break the bruised reed, nor quench the
smoking flax, nor despise the day of small things, churches should not: it may also intend a
receiving of such into intimate conversation, at their private meetings and conferences; taking
particular notice of them; giving them proper instructions; praying with them and for them;
endeavouring to build them up in their most holy faith, and to bring them into the knowledge of
those things they are weak in; bearing their weaknesses patiently, and bearing with them in great
tenderness: thus such should be received,
but not to doubtful disputationsbut not to doubtful disputationsbut not to doubtful disputationsbut not to doubtful disputations; to vain jangling and perverse disputings, such as will rather
perplex than inform them; and will leave their minds doubtful and in suspense, and do them more
harm than good.
HE RY, “We have in this chapter,
I. An account of the unhappy contention which had broken out in the Christian church.
Our Master had foretold that offences would come; and, it seems, so they did, for want of
that wisdom and love which would have prevented discord, and kept up union among
them.
1. There was a difference among them about the distinction of meats and days; these
are the two things specified. There might be other similar occasions of difference, while
these made the most noise, and were most taken notice of. The case was this: The
members of the Christian church at Rome were some of them originally Gentiles, and
others of them Jews. We find Jews at Rome believing, Act_28:24. Now those that had

been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial appointments touching
meats and days. This, which had been bred in the bone with them, could hardly be got
out of the flesh, even after they turned Christians; especially with some of them, who
were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They were not well
instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ, and
therefore retained the ceremonial institutions, and practised accordingly; while other
Christians that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian liberty, made no
such difference
JAMISO , “Rom_14:1-23. Same subject continued - Christian forbearance.
The subject here, and on to Rom_15:13, is the consideration due from stronger
Christians to their weaker brethren; which is but the great law of love (treated of in the
thirteenth chapter) in one particular form.
Him that is weak in the faith — rather, “in faith”; that is, not “him that is weak in
the truth believed” [Calvin, Beza, Alford, etc.], but (as most interpreters agree), “him
whose faith wants that firmness and breadth which would raise him above small
scruples.” (See on Rom_14:22, Rom_14:23).
receive ye — to cordial Christian fellowship.
but not to doubtful disputations — rather, perhaps, “not to the deciding of
doubts,” or “scruples;” that is, not for the purpose of arguing him out of them: which
indeed usually does the reverse; whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and
cordial interchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way of drawing them off.
Two examples of such scruples are here specified, touching Jewish meats and days. “The
strong,” it will be observed, are those who knew these to be abolished under the Gospel;
“the weak” are those who had scruples on this point.
CALVIN, “1.Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the
sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who,
except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at
length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for
the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long
accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not
easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused
a yoke to which they had not been accustomed. (413)
Now, as man’ disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the
Apostle shows how they who thus vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and
he prescribes this as the best mode, — that they who are strong should spend their labor in
assisting the weak, and that they who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more
ignorant. For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may
oppress the weak; nor is it the part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to
despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the
already CONFIRMED , is this, — that the ampler the grace which they had received from the
Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbors.
Not for the debatings of questions. (414) This is a defective sentence, as the word which is
necessary to complete the sense is wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing
else than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the
subject he now handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed
admits, that this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to

press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith. (415)
He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established, or
which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any
thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be
disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to
accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.
(413) Some, as [Haldane ], have found fault with this classification, as there is nothing in the chapter
which countenances it. But as the Apostle’ object throughout the epistle was to reconcile the Jews
and Gentiles, there is reason sufficient to regard them as the two parties here intended: and, as
[Chalmers ] justly observes, it is more probable that the Gentiles were the despisers, inasmuch as
the Jews, who, like Paul, had got over their prejudices, were no doubt disposed to sympathize with
their brethren, who were still held fast by them. — Ed.
(414) Non ad disceptationes quaestionum , µὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισµῶν “non ad altercationes
disceptationum — not for the altercations of disputings” or debatings, [Beza ]; “ to debates about
matter in doubt,” [Doddridge ]; “ in order to the strifes of disputations,” [Macknight ]. Both words are
in the plural NUMBER ; therefore to give the first the sense of “” as [Hodge ] does, cannot be right;
is διάλυσις — untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see Luk_24:38, and 1Ti_2:8.
according to the frequent import of the preposition εἰς the sentence may be thus paraphrased, “ who
is weak in the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts,” or, “ in reasonings,” or, “ in
disputations.” — Ed.
(415) [Scott ] ’ remarks on this verse are striking and appropriate, — “” he says, “ authority vested
by Christ in his Apostles, and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind, differences of
opinion prevailed even among real Christians; nor did St. Paul, by an express decision and
command, attempt to put a final termination to them. A proposition indeed may be certain and
important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due preparation of mind and heart; — so that a
compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without conviction,
would in general be hypocrisy, and entirely UNAVAILING . So essential are the rights and
existence of private judgment, in all possible cases, to the exercise of true religion! and so useless
an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding controversies, and producing unanimity
among Christians!”
THOMAS SMITH “ ow to consider what Paul meant by the term weak in Romans
14. He had in mind those Christians whose consciences are disturbed by the
practices of other Christians in areas to do with the literal obedience of the
ceremonial part of the Old Testament law. The ‘weak’, felt that they could not, with
a clear conscience, give up the observance of such ritual requirements as the
distinction between clean and unclean foods and the keeping of special days.
i. This is why it appears that the division between the ‘weak’ and the
‘strong’ was also, to a large extent, one between Jewish and Gentile
Christians. (This agrees well with the use of 'ritually unclean' in 14.14
and of 'clean' in 14.20. Possibly some Christians in a pagan city, wishing
to be sure of avoiding meat which may have been unclean according to

the Old Testament ritual law, decided to simply abstain altogether from
meat.)
Gary Vanderet
Before we come to the text, it is important to understand what Paul means by these
terms. When he uses the word "weak," he is not referring to someone with a weak
character, one who gives in easily to temptation. He is speaking of one who is
"weak" in faith, whose faith doesn't permit him to do certain things. This person
does not lack self-control; what he lacks is freedom.
This is the principle of unconditional acceptance, especially of the "weak in faith."
That word "accept" means more than a mere acknowledgment of their right to
belong. John Stott comments: "It implies the warmth and kindness of love."[2] The
word is used elsewhere in the ew Testament of Philemon giving Onesimus the
same welcome that he would give an apostle. It is also used of the welcome that
believers will receive from Jesus when we are ushered into his presence in heaven
(John 14:3). The "weak" are not to be rejected, ignored or treated as second class
believers. Paul adds, "but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions."
We don't accept one who is "weak" in order to debate or argue with him. Our
acceptance and welcome come without ulterior motives or hidden agendas. We are
to respect the opinions of others.
i. That word translated "opinions" in the ASB, or "disputable
matters" in the IV, deals with areas that Christians do not have to agree
about. The sixteenth century Reformers called these "matters of
indifference." In matters where Scripture is unequivocally clear and
absolute, where truth is stated in such a way that is unmistakable, it is
sinful for us to debate those issues.
Paul is saying that Christians will differ on these issues, but that shouldn't make any
difference with respect to how we treat one another. We should accept one another,
but not for the purpose of sinful debate. David Roper puts it this way: "Don't accept
your brother into the fellowship and then invite him over to your house to
straighten him out. That seems to be the Christian's favorite indoor sport --
straightening out other Christians. There is really only one person in the world we
can do very much about. Where the Spirit of God has been ambiguous, we must not
be definitive. Where God has been clear, we can be clear. Where God has
commanded a truth, we can believe it with assurance. But where Scripture is not
clear, we must not be dogmatic."[4] That doesn't mean we can't have personal
convictions about these issues. Paul says that each person should be convinced in his
or her own mind. But we have to accept one another.
Disputable matters is the issue here and not issues where there is no dispute.
obody says breaking the ten commandments is okey sometimes and should not be
judged. Christians have an obligation to judge what is clearly out of Gods will.
In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives the following instruction for dealing with the sin of
a brother in Christ. First you must go to him and tell him his sin. If he doesn't listen
to you, you're to take witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, you're to tell the whole

church. If he doesn't listen to the church, the church is to consider him as an
unbeliever. That passage is necessary because sin has such a crippling effect on the
body of believers.
In 2 Thessalonians Paul says to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that
walketh disorderly" (3:6f).
JOH MACARTHUR
Within the church are people at all different levels of life, both physically and
spiritually--young people to old people. Some people have been saved fifty years;
others have come to know Christ within the last forty-eight hours. Some come from
irreligious, atheistic, or humanistic backgrounds; others come from devout Roman
Catholic families. Some used to be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Some come
from legalistic fundamentalist churches, and others come from loose, free-wheeling
churches.
Such diversity is a good thing, but it tends to bring about clashes. The church is not
only made up of Christians at every level of maturity, but we all have one thing in
common as well: although we have been redeemed, we are hindered by our flesh
(Rom. 6-7). ( evertheless, according to Romans 8, victory is ours through the Holy
Spirit.) It is as important to deal with the conflict of diverse people, all with
unredeemed flesh, as it is to deal with overt sin. Some have said to me, "Why don't
the ladies wear hats?" They are concerned because they came from a background
where the ladies wore hats. Others have asked me, "Why don't you have any
candles?" It is difficult for them to worship without candles because that has been
their lifetime of experience. Some have been offended by certain hairstyles because
some churches judge a person's spirituality by the length of his hair. Some are
offended by certain styles of music. Some don't have a problem with drinking while
others view it as a vile sin. There are some who wouldn't miss the latest movie while
others wouldn't darken the door of a theater for fear that God would strike them
dead, like Ananias and Sapphira, at the box office!
(a) The strong
Liberated brothers and sisters in Christ fully understand what it means to be free in
Christ-- they don't cling to meaningless traditions and forms of religion. They
understand fully that they are free from sin, death, hell, and Satan. They
understand they are not obligated to follow holy days and ceremonies. They know
they are free to make choices dependent on how the Spirit of God moves in their
hearts. Such people are strong in the faith.
(b) The weak
These individuals continue to hang onto the rituals and ceremonies of their past,
refusing to let go. They don't believe they have freedom in Christ to do otherwise.
Such freedom threatens them, so they prefer remain as they are.
(a) The contempt of the strong

The strong are tempted to look down on the weak as legalistic, faithless people who
get in the way of those who are trying to enjoy their liberty. They resent the weak
for labeling their rightful freedoms in Christ as sin.
(b) The condemnation of the weak
The weak tend to condemn the strong for what they see as an abuse of liberty.
The conflict in the church at Rome was between the legalistic believer who saw
liberty as sinful and the liberated believer who saw legalism as sinful. Paul gave four
principles to deal with that conflict: receive one another with understanding (Rom.
14:1- 12), build up one another without offending (14:13-23), please one another as
Christ did (15:1-7), and rejoice with one another in God's plan (15:8-13).
As recipients of the blessings of the ew Covenant, we are free to enjoy all that God
has provided without any restrictions in terms of non-moral issues. But certain
people attempt to convince us that we're not free to eat or drink certain things.
Others tell us our recreation is limited. Some tell us we cannot watch television or
movies. Others tell us cigarettes or playing cards are in themselves evil. Some tell us
that a man should not let his hair grow over his ears or wear a beard. Yet others tell
us that not wearing a beard is unspiritual. All those things have nothing to do with
what Scripture clearly delineates as sin. They are neutral--neither right or wrong
according to Scripture--and are the elements of Christian liberty.
The two issues that Paul deals with here are diet and days of worship. Diet
cannot be wrong whatever you eat for as Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:4, "For
everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received
with thanksgiving." . Paul says in Romans 14:14, "As one who is in the Lord
Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." Sometimes we
say this is so good it must be sinful, but it is not. The only way it can be sinful
to eat any particular food in and of itself is when you offend another by doing
so. It is not the food that is the problem, but your insensitivity.
Remember that man covers women as well. It is a generic word for mankind. Paul
knew women could have opposite opinions also, and so he is not suggesting that only
men can have differences, with some being weak and others strong in faith.
The one who is weak in faith is one who has not so grasped the new faith in Christ
that he has risen above having distinctions concerning meats and days. obody
gives up a religious conviction easy. A Jew who has held certain ideas all of his life
is not going to find it easy to forsake them when he becomes a Christian. Many
Jews who became Christians brought with them old ideas from Judaism, and this
made them quite legalistic. The strong in faith are those who put away dependence
upon the law and lean wholly on the grace of Jesus for their assurance. All of us are
weak to some degree, in some area, even if not in the issues involved here.

To Him our weakness clings
Through tribulation sore;
We seek the comfort of His wings
'Till all be o'er.
The one weak in faith has not grasped fully what justification by faith is all about.
A person can be a Christians and have wrong ideas about salvation. They still trust
Christ, but have old ideas of salvation by works still in their minds. They are still
saved and are to be welcomed. obody who loves and trusts Jesus is to be rejected,
even if they have some strange or false ideas. We have no right to demand of others
what God does not demand for fellowship with Himself. He has masses of His
children who have ideas that are far from what they ought to be. That is what
Christian growth is all about. You have to start somewhere, and many of the early
Christians started as Jews who lived all their life under the law. Paul is defending
the rights of the minority to full fellowship in the church. The weak are not strong
enough to push their way in. They need acceptance to feel welcome.
Calvin writes, "They who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine
should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own
strength to sustain their weakness, for among the people of God there are some
weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and
kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion." All
Christians are strong or weak at different times and on different issues, and all at
some point will have scruples.
Paul is not suggesting a Welcome Week, but he is saying we must always be ready
to Welcome the Weak. It is essential that the stronger Christians welcome the
weaker Christians, for that is there only hope of becoming stronger. We are not to
become like the Pharisees and look down our noses at those who have not come to
all the same conclusions that we have. Pride is not to be a part of Christian
fellowship. We are not to let differences break the unity that we have in Christ.
The strong who cannot welcome the weak are really weaker than the weak.
The weak in faith are not the same as the wrong in faith. If a person is teaching
something contrary to the teaching of Christ he is not to be welcomed-2John 9-10.
We are to pass judgment upon views that
contradict the Bible (Titus 1:9-11; 2 Tim. 4:2; 2:18; 1 Tim. 6:3-4;
1:3; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:12; Romans 3:8).
But if, as some say, this chapter includes doctrinal error,
then they must accept the following conclusions: a. Every brother
engaged in sin and error is to be accepted. b. Sin and error is
a matter of personal opinion. Hence no absolute right and wrong.
c. We cannot preach against anything, except intolerance.
Christians who strive for exclusiveness are not filled with the mind or spirit of

Christ. ewell rebukes certain groups and writes, "Unless a man pronounces
"shibboleth" their way, there is not the thought of receiving him. This is the
Phariseeism of the last days. And sad to say it is most found among those most
enlightened in the truth, for "knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." Where
faith in Christ in the least degree is found, we should be thankfully delighted, and
should welcome such believers."
Parker in the People's Bible writes, "He never told the weak man a lie.
Steadily and frankly he persevered in telling the weak man that he was weak,
and that if anything was done on his account, it was done simply because a
good many things are done for the sake of the baby of the household. But
because all these concessions are made to him he does not cease to be a baby."
The weak are weak in-
1.Faith-see 14:22-23 HAST THOU FAITH? HAVE IT TO THYSELF BEFORE
GOD.
HAPPY IS HE THAT CO DEM ETH OT HIMSELF I THAT THI G
WHICH HE ALLOWETH. A D HE THAT DOUBTETH IS DAM ED IF HE
EAT, BECAUSE HE EATETH OT OF FAITH:
FOR WHATSOEVER IS OT OF FAITH IS SI .
2. Knowledge-(1 COR 8:7) HOWBEIT THERE IS OT I EVERY MA THAT
K OWLEDGE: FOR SOME WITH CO SCIE CE OF THE IDOL U TO THIS
HOUR EAT IT AS A THI G OFFERED
U TO A IDOL; A D THEIR CO SCIE CE BEI G WEAK IS DEFILED.
3. Conscience-His conscience is overly sensitive, condemning him for things
Scripture
does not. (1 Cor. 8:7; 10, 12).
4. will-He is weak in his will because he can be influenced to do something
contrary to his con-science, or to act without becoming fully convinced
by Scripture that something is either right or wrong.
In this case, the weaker person acts on the example of the stronger
believer without biblical conviction and faith.
This violates his conscience, and so causes him to sin against the
Lord (1 Cor. 8:10).
. Michael P. Andrus First Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis County, Missouri
writes,
Those that are "weak in the faith"
Look again at verses 1 & 2: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing
judgment on disputable matters. {2} One man's faith allows him to eat
everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." This
speaks of one whose "faith is weak," but the original Greek actually speaks of
one who is "weak in the faith." This man is having a doctrinal and theological
problem--he hasn’t yet come to grips that with the fact that at the death of
Christ the believer was released from bondage to the Mosaic Law. He’s weak

in that his conscience still bothers him when he eats meat or fails to observe the
Sabbath or drinks certain beverages, etc. He’s weak in that he is still in slavery
to the shadows and hasn’t experienced the glorious freedom which comes
through Jesus Christ. He’s weak in that he hasn’t yet fully liberated himself
from a belief in the efficacy of works. He still thinks more of what he can do
for God than of what God has done for him. His general approach is, "If the
Bible hasn’t specifically approved something, then it’s probably wrong."
That’s the weak brother.
DAVID HOKE, “People struggle with different things. What is taboo and what is
not? Since becoming a Christian, I have heard of people who thought it sin for men
to have hair past their ears, long sideburns or beards. Some think that women who
wear slacks are wrong for doing so. Similarly, some think that women who wear
makeup are modern-day Jezebels identifying with the world. I heard a pastor tell of
a lady who came up to him after a service and asked him whether it was a sin to
wear makeup. She looked kind of white and chalky, like a reject from a Geritol
commercial. He said that he took one long look at her and said, "Go get some." In
her case, she had been taught that there was something sinful about wearing
makeup.
Those that are "strong in the faith"
On the other hand, there is the strong brother. His general approach is different: "If
the Bible hasn’t specifically forbidden something, then it’s probably within my
rights to do it." He enjoys his freedom in Christ and doesn’t find his conscience
inhibiting him in regard to many of the (quote) "things that don’t matter." He
knows experientially what John 8:31,32 means, as Jesus says, "If you hold to my
teaching, you really are my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth
will set you free." That’s the strong brother.
The curious thing here, and I want you to catch this, is that these labels have
largely been reversed in the conservative church today. The legalistic believer
who has a list of don'ts a mile long; who has appointed himself as the spiritual
watchdog of the church; who is the first to throw up his hands in holy terror if
he sees a fellow-believer smoking or drinking a beer; who automatically writes
someone off from leadership in the church if he or she has suffered a divorce,
no matter what the cause, actually considers himself the strong brother.
If we don’t accomplish anything else this morning I hope we at least come to
realize that the one whose list of scruples and inhibitions is long and rigid is the
weak brother, while the one who refuses to add to the T’s list of do’s and
don'ts is the strong brother.
If I may chase down a philosophical rabbit trail for a moment, I believe that a very
interesting thing has developed in the evangelical church over the past several
decades, and that is that quite a number of Christians tend to make the automatic
assumption that the conservative position is always the right position and the more
liberal position is always the wrong position. And they tend to forget that we
evangelicals are supposed to get our viewpoints out of the Bible, and it shouldn’t
matter whether it seems liberal or conservative by popular evangelical standards.

"Let me use another example. About a year ago there was an older woman
attending our church for a few months whose name I never learned, but she had a
penchant for the KJV. One day she called me up to find out why I didn’t preach
from the KJV. I told her it was because I didn’t think it was as accurate a
translation as the IV or the ASB. Suddenly I got an earful about how the KJV is
the inspired Word of God and all these new-fangled Bibles are tools of Satan, and it
went down hill from there. Well, her position is certainly conservative, but it’s
terribly weak with the facts. I have a great appreciation for the beauty of the KJV,
but when history and grammar and textual criticism are taken into consideration,
there is simply no way the KJV can be held up as a superior translation. It simply
isn’t so.
Friends, the only really strong position is the one that corresponds to truth, and I
for one am willing to stand on God’s Word even if it means that the whole of
fundamentalism and half of evangelicalism think I’m a "liberal," or even if the
other half of evangelicals and all the liberals think I’m a "knee-jerk conservative."
ot for dispute over opinions. There is good reason for disputes when the
issue is a matter of clear revelation and essential doctrine. But when it comes to
opinions it is folly to dispute. Is Bach better than Beethoven? This is a matter
of personal taste and has no place in Christian debate. Do not welcome the
weak brother or sister because you know they have weak ideas and you look
forward to the fun of tearing them to shreds and to torment them with your
liberty in Christ. The more mature Christian can be a real stinker in teasing
another Christian who is hung up on old ideas he was taught by some legalistic
group he grew up in.
writes, "The weak brother in the early church was the one who had been
regenerated by God's Spirit, but who had not as yet been freed from his
superstitions,
prejudices, theories, and legality." There are many Christians today who still have
the prejudices they grew up with, and have hangups of all kinds that come with
them into the church. We are not to despise them for these weaknesses, but accept
them as God does. God loves us all just as we are, but too much to leave us there.
That is to be our attitude as well.
Disputable matters are inevitable in any group, for we are a diverse people by
design, and not all made alike. All it takes is one person in a group to cause
disunity for unity calls for one hundred percent cooperation and agreement,
but only one can create disunity, and so disunity is more likely than unity in
any body of people.
HOKE, “ But by referring to some as weak, he is not putting them down. Some are
weak simply because they have not yet had the time and experience to mature. To be
weak is only embarrassing when you should be strong. We don’t expect little babies
in the crib to be strong, but we do expect full-grown men to be strong, at least by
comparison to the little babe. Consequently, it is important for us to understand

that we are not all at the same level of maturity. Unfortunately, because we are not
all the same, this creates problems in our life together.”
STEDMA
To accept him, of course, means that regardless of where you may struggle with
someone and about what you may struggle, you must realize that they are brothers
and sisters in the family of God, if they are Christians at all. You did not make them
part of the family -- the Lord did. Therefore, you are to accept them because they
are your brothers and sisters. And you are not to accept them with the idea of
immediately straightening them out in the areas in which they are weak. I think that
is a very necessary, practical admonition because many of us love to argue and
sometimes the first thing we want to do is straighten somebody out.
I remember years ago when, after preaching from this platform on a Sunday night,
a man came up to me and started talking in a rather roundabout way. He said, "Let
me ask you something. Do you believe that two Christians who love the Lord and
are led by the Holy Spirit will read a passage of Scripture and both come out
believing the same thing?" I said, "Yes, I think that sounds logical." "Well," he
said, "can you explain why, when I read the passage you preached on tonight, I
believe it teaches there will be no millennium, but when you read it, you believe
there is going to be one. What do you think of that?" Being young and aggressive I
said, "Well, I think it means that I believe the Bible and you do not." That
immediately precipitated an argument and, with several other people gathered
around, we went at it hammer and tongs for an hour or so. Afterwards, thinking it
through, I realized how wrong I was. I had immediately started arguing. I had to
write to that brother and tell him that I was sorry I had jumped on him like that. Of
course, he had jumped on me, too, but that was his problem, not mine. I had to
straighten out my problem, so I apologized to him and said, "I am sorry that I did
not recognize the parts where we agree before we got on to those things over which
we differ."
Paul wants us to understand that this is what we are to do. First of all, accept
people, let them know that you see them as a brother or a sister. Establish the
boundaries of your relationship by some gesture or word of acceptance so they do
not feel that you are attacking them immediately. The Greek here says not to accept
them in order to argue about your differences, or, as the ew English Bible puts it,
"without attempting to settle doubtful points." First, let there be a basic recognition
that you belong to one another.
It is also clear that he calls the "liberal party" strong in the faith, while the "narrow
party" is regarded as being weak in the faith.
Therefore, the mark of understanding truth is freedom; it is liberty. That is why
Paul calls the person who understands truth clearly one who is strong in the faith,
while those who do not understand it clearly are weak in the faith. They do not
understand the delivering character of truth. I think William Barclay in his

commentary on Romans has handled this well. He says:
Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:
(i) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom; he is at heart still
a legalist; he sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations. His whole aim is to
govern his life by a series of laws and observances; he is indeed frightened of
Christian freedom and Christian liberty.
(ii) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his
heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain things and
abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship
with God, and has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still thinking of what he
can do for God more than of what God has done for him.
That is the problem here. It is the problem of a Christian who is not yet
understanding fully the freedom that Christ has brought him, who struggles with
these kinds of things, and who feels limited in his ability to indulge or to use some of
these things -- while others feel free to do so. One is strong in the faith; the other is
called weak in the faith. Every church has these groups.
We are not to exclude these people from our contacts with one another. We must not
form little cliques within the church that shut out people from social fellowship with
people who have different viewpoints. We must not think of our group as being set
free while this group over here is very narrow and we have nothing to do with them.
This is wrong, and Paul clearly says so. In fact, he implies that if any of the so-called
strong exclude weaker brothers, look down on them, treat them as though they are
second-class Christians, they have simply proved that they are just as weak in the
faith as the ones they have denied. Strength in the faith means more than
understanding truth. It means living in a loving way with those who are weak: The
truly strong in the faith will never put down those who are still struggling.
BAR ES
There were many Jews in Rome; and it is probable that no small part of the
church was composed of them. The ew Testament everywhere shows that
they were disposed to bind the Gentile converts to their own customs, and to
insist on the observance of the unique laws of Moses; see Act_15:1-2, etc.;
Gal_2:3-4. The “subjects” on which questions of this kind would be agitated
were, circumcision, days of fasting, the distinction of meats, etc. A part of these
only are discussed in this chapter. The views of the apostle in regard to
“circumcision” had been stated in Rom. 3–4. In this chapter he notices the
disputes which would be likely to arise on the following subjects;
(1) The use of “meat,” evidently referring to the question whether it was
lawful to eat the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; Rom_14:2.
(2) the distinctions and observances of the days of Jewish fastings, etc.,
Rom_14:5-6.

(3) the laws observed by the Jews in relation to animals as “clean” or “unclean;”
Rom_14:14.
It is probable that these are mere “specimens” adduced by the apostle to
settle “principles” of conduct in regard to the Gentiles, and to show to each
party how they ought to act in “all” such questions.
The apostle’s design here is to allay all these contentions by producing peace,
kindness, charity. This he does by the following considerations, namely:
(1) That we have no right to “judge” another man in this case, for he is the servant
of God; Rom_14:3-4.
(2) that whatever course is taken in these questions, it is done conscientiously, and
with a desire to glorify God. In such a case there should be kindness and charity;
Rom_14:6, etc.
(3) that we must stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and give an account “there;”
and that “we,” therefore, should not usurp the function of judging; Rom_14:10-13.
(4) that there is really nothing unclean of itself; Rom_14:14.
(5) that religion consisted in more important matters than “such” questions;
Rom_14:17-18.
(6) that we should follow after the things of peace, etc.; Rom_14:19-23.
The principles of this chapter are applicable to all “similar” cases of difference of
opinion about rites and ceremonies, and unessential doctrines of religion; and we
shall see that if they were honestly applied, they would settle no small part of the
controversies in the religious world.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to
doubtful disputations.
Strong and weak
Here is a lesson—
I. For those who are strong in the faith.
1. Not to provoke.
2. Nor despise those who are weak.
II. For those who are weak. Not to judge their stronger brethren.
III. For both.
1. To think and let think.
2. To give each other credit for sincerity. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
The weak in the faith to be received, or the duty of mutual forbearance
1. “Faith” is not here used in the sense of confidence in Christ, but of the faith. The
question was, did Christianity or did it not require abstinence from certain meats,
and observance of certain fasts and festivals? The man who maintained that it did is
here held to be weak in the faith. He had but faintly grasped the breadth of Christ’s

redeeming work; while he who had attained superior light, and had been set free
from all such scruples, was therefore strong in the faith.
2. Now, the apostle assumes that the latter was right. Had he been wrong, there
could have been no discussion, and there could be no just ground for a moment’s
toleration of him. But he was not wrong (Rom_14:14). The Mosaic law on these
subjects had been done away in Christ (Col_2:16-17).
3. The question was whether the man who conscientiously abstained and observed
might, or might not, be received into the Church. He was certainly not required in
order to salvation to disregard the Jewish festivals, nor to eat unclean meats. But it
never could be tolerated that he should set up his scrupulous conscience as the
normal standard of Christian faith (Gal_2:3-5; Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:1-4). No one must
bind burdens upon men which the Lord had not bound. Hence the weak in faith is to
be received, but not to judgings or condemnations of opinions. If he is content to
enjoy the advantages of fellowship with you, without insisting that you are all wrong,
let him be received; but if his object is to promote contention, etc., then he has no
rightful place amongst you.
I. Let not the strong in the faith despise them that are weak, for their convictions rest
ultimately upon Divine revelation. The law of Moses was of Divine authority, and,
although done away in Christ, was subject to it. Therefore it was not surprising if some of
the Jewish converts still felt insuperable objections to its abandonment. It was a matter
of conscience, and the man who respects his conscience deserves respect, even when
prejudiced and wrong (Rom_14:6). The strong, therefore, must not put a stumbling-
block in their brother’s way. This may be done—
1. By a contempt of his scruples. The disposition to sneer at his stupid weakness will
not convince him that he is either stupid or weak, but will rather drive him utterly
away from those who tolerate such an ungenerous spirit, and perhaps to apostasy.
Now, though the strong had a perfect right to disregard the distinctions of meats, he
had no right to imperil the salvation of any one for whom Christ died (Rom_14:17).
The weak are not required to abstain from meats, but you are not bound to eat them
(1Co_8:13).
2. By example or persuasion. It was quite lawful for the strong to employ argument
in order to convince the weak that he misapprehended the character and purpose of
Christianity: but it was not lawful for him to laugh at his scruples, and to assure him,
without adducing proof, that there could really be no harm in eating, etc. That might
be quite true for him, but it would not be true for his weak brother. If this man
presumed to eat the meat, or to disregard the day, while his scruples remained, his
own conscience would accuse him of unfaithfulness. Thank God for thy liberty
(Rom_14:22); but use it lawfully (Gal_5:13; 1Pe_2:16; 1Co_8:9).
II. The weak in the faith are not to judge or condemn the strong in the faith, the thing to
which they are always predisposed. Incapable of grasping comprehensive principles,
that, e.g., of Christian love, they feel to require a multitude of minute prescriptions. Days
and meats and dress must all be fixed by enactment. And so being most punctiliously
conscientious themselves, are ready to condemn brethren who are not equally
scrupulous. Admit them into the Church by all means, says the apostle; but they must lay
aside this censorious spirit. For it is not suffered them to usurp the place of the great
Supreme. These matters are in themselves morally indifferent (Rom_14:14; 1Ti_4:4). Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act upon his own convictions. Your
judgment is not binding upon any conscience but your own. As to all other matters there

must be mutual forbearance and charity. Yet it is for each one to see—
1. That he is loyally and earnestly devoted to the service of his Lord. Whether strong
or weak his object must be to approve himself unto the Lord in everything, and for
the Lord’s sake to promote the comfort and perfection of all his brethren.
2. That conscience is not offended. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that
which he alloweth in his own practice. Where there is doubt, respect that doubt. Seek
that your conscience may be well informed. (W. Tyson.)
The treatment of the weak
Weak Christians have infirmities, but infirmity supposes life; and we must not despise
them in heart, word, or carriage. We must rather deny ourselves than offend them. We
must support them—bear them as pillars bear the house, as the shoulders the burden, as
the wall the vine, as parents their children, as the oak the ivy; and this because—
1. They are brethren. Are they not of the same body? Shall the hand cut off the little
finger because it is not as large as the thumb? Do men throw away their corn because
it comes into the barn with chaff?
II. They are weak. Bear with them out of pity. In a family, if one of the little ones be sick,
all the larger children are ready to attend it, which they need not do if it were well.
III. Christ does so. “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ”—the
law of—
1. His command.
2. His example. He takes special care of the lambs, will not quench the smoking flax,
and is touched with a feeling of our infirmities. (Philip Henry.)
The duty of forbearance in matters of opinion
Differences of opinion—
I. Must necessarily arise even among Christians, out of—
1. Human ignorance.
2. The different constitution of the mind.
II. In trivial matters indicate weakness of faith in those who are rigidly scrupulous. They
do not understand the spirituality and liberty of the gospel.
III. Should be maintained in the spirit of love.
1. The strong may not despise the weak.
2. The weak and scrupulous may not judge the strong.
IV. Are of infinitely less importance than Christian brotherhood. He whom God has
received must be—
1. Respected.
2. Treated as a brother beloved. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Religious toleration
The argument for this is founded on—
I. The nature and condition of man. He is imperfect, and therefore should also be
tolerant. There is nothing more universal than ignorance, and hence there should be no
virtue more universal than toleration. The facility with which we all absorb error and fall
into prejudices, should make us always ready to tolerate many shades of religious
opinion. It is folly to demand a unity of belief in a world where there is no one wise but
God, and no one good except God. Some of the best men have been the victims of great
errors. All intolerance is based upon egotism. It proceeds from the assumption that you
have reached the ideal. The dreadful Popish persecutions all originated in a human
egotism that cried, “I have found it!” They had become the exponents of God. Whereas
now history shows that in all cases the persons exiled or put to death held a better creed
at the time than those who forced upon them the bitter fate.
II. In the fact that the ideas over which most blood has been shed have subsequently
been proven either useless or false. But one might have premised that the most
intolerance would always be found gathered about the least valuable doctrine, because
the most valuable doctrines are always so evident that no thumb-screw or faggot is ever
needed to make the lips whisper assent. No man has ever been put to death for heresy
regarding the Sermon on the Mount. But when a church comes along with its
“legitimacy,” its Five Points, its Prayer Book, or its Infant Baptism, then comes the
demand for the rack and the stake to make up in terrorism what is wanting in evidence.
When witnesses were wanting, the high priests rent their clothes. If God has so fashioned
the human mind that all its myriad forms can agree upon doctrines that are most vital;
and if, as a fact, persecution has always attached itself to the small, then we would seem
to have the curse of God visibly revealed against intolerance. (D. Swing.)
Toleration
A Quaker, after listening to Whitefield’s preaching, came up to him and said, “Friend
George, I am as thou art. I am for bringing all to the life and power of the everlasting
God; and therefore if thou wilt not quarrel with me about my hat, I will not quarrel with
thee about thy gown.” (J. R. Andrews.)
Toleration: its value
Sailer, afterwards Bishop of Regensburg, could be identified with no party, and was
hated by each. Napoleon prevented his promotion at one time by assuring the king he
was a mere hanger-on to the Roman court; the Pope refused it at another because he
suspected his attachment to the Church He was one of the mildest and most tolerant of
men—mild to excess. It is told that having preached one morning near Salzburg, the
parish clergyman rose up and said he would preach himself in the afternoon, as Sailer
had made the doors of heaven too wide. “You are excellent at bandages,” said one of his
friends, “but a bad operator.” “Very possibly,” he replied; “in my life I have seen more
wounds healed by a good bandage than by a knife.” (Dr. Stephenson.)

Unity to be maintained in spite of differences of opinion
I. How it is imperilled.
1. By forcing our own opinions on others.
2. By overestimating our own practice.
II. How it may be promoted.
1. By forbearance (Rom_14:3).
2. By humility (Rom_14:4).
3. By aiming at personal conviction (Rom_14:5).
4. By keeping in view the glory of God (Rom_14:6).
III. Whereon it rests.
1. The common assurance that we serve one Lord.
2. That we are all redeemed by Him.
IV. What it requires.
1. That we avoid all unbrotherly conduct.
2. That we all submit to God.
3. That we remember our final account. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
Religious disputations
This chapter is written to dissuade men from acting the part of religious critics. It cannot
be said that men are indifferent to religion in other folks. It is only to religion in
themselves that they are comparatively indifferent. Men are so accustomed to criticise
each other’s church service, etc., that they lose the very spirit of religion. The apostle
dissuades everybody from it. A little spring comes out from the side of a mountain, pure
and cool. Two men are determined that that spring shall be kept perfectly pure and
drinkable. One wants it to be done in one way, and the other in another way; and they
are so zealous to keep the spring pure that they get to quarrelling about it, and tramp
through it, and make it muddy. They defile it in their very zeal to keep it pure; and the
water flows down turbid and unfit to drink. Now, men are so determined to glorify God
that they act like the devil. They are so determined that charity shall prevail that they
slay men. They are so determined that a kind spirit shall exist that they will not have a
word to say to a man who does not believe in their catechism. They are so determined
that the world shall be generous that they stir up all manner of corrupting appetites and
passions. They condemn their fellow-men, saying, “Well, they are not orthodox. They are
not true believers. They do not belong to the true Church. There are no covenants for
them.” So, under one pretence and another, the great Christian brotherhood, through the
ages past, has been turmoiled and distracted; and the world has seen the spectacle of
anything but what God meant to establish in the world. The Church by which He meant
to make known His manifold wisdom, has made manifest narrowness, sectarianism,
selfishness, unjust partialities, and all manner of irritable jealousies. It has not made
manifest the beauty of God, the sweetness of Christ Jesus, nor the love of the Spirit. It is
a fact which I think can be stated without fear of contradiction, that the general aspect of
religion, as presented by churches throughout Christendom, is not winning and

attractive, and that the “beauty of holiness,” of which the Scriptures speak, has not yet
blossomed out in the world. (H. W. Beecher.)
Practical godliness better rectifies the judgment than doubtful disputations
1. The weak one is—
(1) Not one that is weak and sick to death, erring in the foundation of faith—one
who doth “not hold the Head” (Col_2:19), who “denieth the Lord that bought
him” (2Pe_2:1; 2Jn_1:10).
(2) Nor one who is sick about “questions” (1Ti_1:4; 1Ti 5:13; 2Ti_2:13).
(3) But one who, though he hath embraced the Saviour, yet is not of a mature
judgment, clear enough about the abolition of ceremonial observations, things
[which] he judgeth ought to be forborne or done.
2. Charity is enjoined towards such. “Take them to you, receive them into your
houses” (Rom_12:13; Luk_5:29). When they fly for their religion and lives, supply
their wants, though not just of your opinion. Do not force them to practise what they
cannot freely do, but receive them into your arms, love and converse, that you may
instruct them and win them into your communion. Let not little differences cause the
greatest distances (Rom_14:3).
3. The limitation of this exception. “Not to doubtful disputations.”
I. Disputations are not easily judged of by such as are weak in faith. This is evident from
the first dispute that ever was in the world.
1. By this first dispute with the serpent, our first parents were foiled when in
uprightness and strength of the image of God. But now sinful man is in a much more
dark and doleful state. For—
(1) He cannot form an idea of anything as it is in itself (1Co_8:2; 2Co_3:5).
(2) His judgment, therefore, must needs be dubious or wrong whereby he is to
compare things that differ or agree (Hos_9:7; Isa_5:20; Heb_5:14).
(3) His conclusions, therefore, must needs be distorted from these premisses;
and the errors in the first and second concoction are not corrected and amended
by the third. He who cannot make one straight step, can never take three
together.
2. As we are lame in our feet by our naturals, so even those who by the light of the
gospel and grace are brought over to better understanding, yet by virtue of the old
craziness they are not thoroughly illuminated and refined. The very apostles
themselves were plainly told by our Saviour of His sufferings and resurrection, yet
“they understood none of these things” (Luk_18:33-34; Luk_24:45). Paul says, We
“know” but “in part” (1Co_13:12). We see but one side of the globe. These weak Jews
were zealous for their ceremonies; the Gentiles, as hot for theirs; let no man think
himself infallible, for these were all mistaken.
3. Nothing so convulseth men’s reason as interest.
II. The practice of holy duties is the ready way to have our minds enlightened in the
knowledge of principles. These practical duties—
1. Give light (Joh_3:21). The very entrance into the command giveth light

(Psa_119:130); the door is a window to him that hath a weak sight.
2. Advance light. Every step a man takes he goeth into a new horizon, and gets a
further prospect into truth.
3. Keep from error or help out of it. Communion with the saints, e.g., as in a team if
one horse lash out of the way, if the others hold their course, they will draw the
former to the right path. “If any man will do this will of God, he shall know of the
doctrine” (Psa_35:14).
III. Christian charity and reception will sooner win weak ones to the truth than rigid
arguments.
1. Opposition breeds oppositions. When men dispute, they jostle for the way, and so
one or both must needs leave the path of truth and peace. The saw of contention
reciprocated, with its keen teeth eateth up both truth and love; for such contentions
are rather for victory than truth.
2. Loving converse taketh off those prejudices which hinder men’s minds from a true
knowledge of others’ principles and practices.
3. Sincere love and converse breed a good opinion of persons who differ from us.
They can taste humility, meekness, and kindness, better than the more speculative
principles of religion. (T. Woodcock, A.M.)
Unwise disputations
Such facts remind us of an incident that occurred on the south-eastern coast. A noble
ship with its crew and passengers was in awful peril, having struck on a sunken rock.
Having been observed by those on shore, the lifeboat was ran down to the beach.
Everything was in readiness when a most unseemly quarrel arose. There were two rival
crews, each of which claimed the right to man the boat, and to receive any remuneration
that might be earned by pulling out to the wreck. Neither crew would give way to the
other, and so the boat was not launched, and while those men were wrangling with each
other the ship and all on board her went under the raging billows. That was a sad scene.
But in the eyes of Heaven it must be a still sadder spectacle to see the Church wasting her
time and energies in disputing about points of doctrine and discipline, and yet leaving
vast multitudes of men to perish in their sin and misery and despair. (Christian
Journal.)
Christian forbearance
Let each receive every other in his individuality, and that not to doubtful disputations.
We are not to attempt to shape men to that which we think they ought to be in a hard
and systematic manner. In churches we see exhibited certain styles of character. The
lines have been laid down with accuracy. The members are to believe such and such
things, and they are to observe such and such bounds and theological lines, or else they
are like a plant that is in a pot that is too small for its roots, and they are dwarfs all the
rest of their lives. There are a few Christians (I would to God there were more) in whom
the kingdom of God is like an oak or cedar of Lebanon; but there are many who are
called Christians in whom the kingdom of God is no bigger than a thimble. There are
men who have a few catechetical ideas, who are orthodox, and who make no mistakes in

theology; but woe be to the man who does not make any mistakes. Count the sands of the
sea, if you can, without misreckoning. A man that has a hundred ducats or dollars may
count them and make no mistake; but multiply them by millions, and then can he count
them without any mistake? I am sorry for a man who does not make mistakes. If you
have a huge bucket, and a pint of water in it, you will never make the mistake of spilling
the water; but if a man is carrying a huge bucket full of water he will be certain to spill it.
(H. W. Beecher.)
Disputations to be avoided
John Wesley, a man whose bitterest enemy could not fairly accuse him of indifference to
the doctrines and faith “once delivered to the saints,” wrote thus liberally and large-
heartedly to a correspondent: “Men may die without any opinions, and yet be carried
into Abraham’s bosom; but if we be without love, what will knowledge avail? I will not
quarrel with you about opinions. Only see that your heart be right toward God, and that
you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, and love your neighbours, and walk as your
Master walked, and I ask no more. I am sick of opinions. Give me a good and substantial
religion, a humble, gentle love of God and man.”
Christian contention
God grant that we may contend with other churches, as the vine with the olive, which of
us shall bear the best fruit; but not, as the brier with the thistle, which of us will be most
unprofitable! (Lord Bacon.)
Contagious contention
As a little spark many times setteth a whole house on fire; even so a contentious and
froward person, of a little matter of nought, maketh much debate and division among
lovers and friends. As we see one coal kindle another, and wood to be apt matter to make
a fire; so those that are disposed to contention and brawling are apt to kindle strife.
(Cawdray.)
Test of controversy
A cobbler at Leyden, who used to attend the public disputations held at the academy, was
once asked if he understood Latin. “No,” replied the mechanic; “but I know who is wrong
in the argument.” “How?” replied his friend. “Why, by seeing who is angry first.”
Christian liberty:—In such points as may be held diversely by diverse persons, I would
not take any man’s liberty from him; and I humbly beseech all men that they would not
take mine from me. (Abp. Bramhall.)
EBC, “CHRISTIAN DUTY: MUTUAL TENDERNESS AND TOLERANCE: THE
SACREDNESS OF EXAMPLE
BUT him who is weak-we might almost render, him who suffers from weakness, in his
faith (in the sense here not of creed, a meaning of πίστις rare in St. Paul, but of reliance

on his Lord; reliance not only for justification but, in this case, for holy liberty), welcome
into fellowship-not for criticisms of his scruples, of his διαλογισµοί, the anxious internal
debates of conscience. One man believes, has faith, issuing in a conviction of liberty, in
such a mode and degree as to eat all kinds of food; but the man in weakness eats
vegetables only; an extreme case, but doubtless not uncommon, where a convert, tired
out by his own scruples between food and food, cut the knot by rejecting flesh meat
altogether. The eater-let him not despise the non-eater; while the non-eater-let him not
judge the eater: for our God welcomed him to fellowship, when he came to the feet of His
Son for acceptance. You-who are you, thus judging Another’s domestic? To his own Lord,
his own Master. he stands, in approval, -or, if that must be, falls under displeasure; but
he shall be upheld in approval; for able is that Lord to set him so, to bid him "stand,"
under His sanctioning smile. One man distinguishes day above day; while another
distinguishes every day; a phrase paradoxical but intelligible; it describes the thought of
the man who, less anxious than his neighbour about stated "holy days," still aims not to
"level down" but to "level up" his use of time; to count every day "holy," equally
dedicated to the will and work of God. Let each be quite assured in his own mind; using
the thinking power given him by his Master, let him reverently work the question out,
and then live up to his ascertained convictions, while (this is intimated by the emphatic
"his own mind") he respects the convictions of his neighbour. The man who "minds" the
day, the "holy day" in question, in any given instance, to the Lord he "minds" it; (and the
man who "minds" not the day, to the Lord he does not "mind" it); both parties, as
Christians, in their convictions and their practice, stand related and responsible, directly
and primarily to the Lord; that fact must always govern and qualify their mutual
judgments. And the eater, the man who takes food indifferently without scruple, to the
Lord he eats, for he gives thanks at his meal to God; and the non-eater, to the Lord he
does not eat the scrupled food, and gives thanks to God for that of which his conscience
allows him to partake.
The connection of the paragraph just traversed with what went before it is suggestive and
instructive. There is a close connection between the two; it is marked expressly by the
"but" (δέ) of ver. 1 (Rom_14:1), a link strangely missed in the Authorised Version. The
"but" indicates a difference of thought, however slight, between the two passages. And
the differenced as we read it, is this. The close of the thirteenth chapter has gone all in
the direction of Christian wakefulness, decision, and the battlefield of conquering faith.
The Roman convert, roused by its trumpet strain, will be eager to be up and doing,
against the enemy and for his Lord, armed from head to foot with Christ. He will bend
his whole purpose upon a life of open and active holiness. He will be filled with a new
sense at once of the seriousness and of the liberty of the Gospel. But then some "weak
brother" will cross his path. It will be some recent convert, perhaps from Judaism itself,
perhaps an ex-pagan, but influenced by the Jewish ideas so prevalent at the time in many
Roman circles. This Christian, not untrustful, at least in theory, of the Lord alone for
pardon and acceptance, is, however, quite full of scruples which, to the man fully "armed
with Christ," may seem, and do seem, lamentably morbid, really serious mistakes and
hindrances. The "weak brother" Spends much time in studying the traditional rules of
fast and feast, and the code of permitted food. He is sure that the God who has accepted
him will hide His face from him if he lets the new moon pass like a common day; or if the
Sabbath is not kept by the rule, not of Scripture, but of the Rabbis. Every social meal
gives him painful and frequent occasion for troubling himself, and others; he takes
refuge perhaps in an anxious vegetarianism, in despair of otherwise keeping undefiled.
And inevitably such scruples do not terminate in themselves. They infect the man’s
whole tone of thinking and action. He questions and discusses everything, with himself,

if not with others. He is on the way to let his view of acceptance in Christ grow fainter
and more confused. He walks, he lives; but he moves like a man chained, and in a prison.
Such a case as this would be a sore temptation to the "strong" Christian. He would be
greatly inclined, of himself, first to make a vigorous protest, and then, if the difficulty
proved obstinate, to think hard thoughts of his narrow-minded friend; to doubt his right
to the Christian name at all; to reproach him, or (worst of all) to satirise him. Meanwhile
the "weak" Christian would have his harsh thoughts too. He would not, by any means for
certain, show as much meekness as "weakness." He would let his neighbour see, in one
way or other, that he thought him little better than a worldling, who made Christ an
excuse for personal self-indulgence.
How does the Apostle meet the trying case, which must have crossed his own path so
often, and sometimes in the form of a bitter opposition from those who were "suffering
from weakness in their faith"? It is quite plain that his own convictions lay with "the
strong," so far as principle was concerned. He "knew that nothing was unclean"
(Rom_14:14). He knew that the Lord was not grieved, but pleased, by the temperate and
thankful use, untroubled by morbid fears, of His natural bounties. He knew that the
Jewish festival system had found its goal and end in the perpetual "let us keep the feast"
(1Co_5:3) of the true believer’s happy and hallowed life. And accordingly he does, in
passing, rebuke "the weak" for their harsh criticisms (κρίνειν) of "the strong." But then,
he throws all the more weight, the main weight, on his rebukes and warnings to "the
strong." Their principle might be right on this great detail. But this left untouched the yet
more stringent overruling principle, to "walk in love"; to take part against themselves; to
live in this matter, as in everything else, for others. They were not to be at all ashamed of
their special principles. But they were to be deeply ashamed of one hour’s unloving
conduct. They were to be quietly convinced, in respect of private judgment. They were to
be more than tolerant-they were to be loving-in respect of common life in the Lord.
Their "strength" in Christ was never to be ungentle; never to be "used like a giant’s." It
was to be shown, first and most, by patience. It was to take the form of the calm, strong
readiness to understand another’s point of view. It was to appear as reverence for
another’s conscience, even when the conscience went astray for want of better light.
Let us take this apostolic principle out into modern religious life. There are times when
we shall be specially bound to put it carefully in relation to other principles, of course.
When St. Paul, some months earlier, wrote to Galatia, and had to deal with an error
which darkened the whole truth of the sinner’s way to God as it lies straight through
Christ, he did not say, "Let every man be quite assured in his own mind." He said
(Rom_1:8) "If an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel, which is not another, let
him be anathema." The question there was, Is Christ all, or is He not? Is faith all, or is it
not, for our laying hold of Him? Even in Galatia, he warned the converts of the miserable
and fatal mistake of "biting and devouring one another". (Gal_5:15) But he adjured them
not to wreck their peace with God upon a fundamental error. Here, at Rome, the
question was different; it was secondary. It concerned certain details of Christian
practice. Was an outworn and exaggerated ceremonialism a part of the will of God, in the
justified believer’s life? It was not so, as a fact. Yet it was a matter on which the Lord, by
His Apostle, rather counselled than commanded. It was not of the foundation. And the
always overruling law for the discussion was-the tolerance born of love. Let us in our day
remember this, whether our inmost sympathies are with "the strong" or with "the weak."
In Jesus Christ, it is possible to realise the ideal of this paragraph even in our divided
Christendom. It is possible to be convinced, yet sympathetic. It is possible to see the Lord
for ourselves with glorious clearness, yet to understand the practical difficulties felt by

others, and to love, and to respect, where there are even great divergences. No man
works more for a final spiritual consensus than he who, in Christ, so lives.
Incidentally meantime, the Apostle, in this passage which so curbs "the strong," lets fall
maxims which forever protect all that is good and true in that well-worn and often
misused phrase, "the right of private judgment." No spiritual despot, no claimant to be
the autocratic director of a conscience, could have written those words, "Let every man
be quite certain in his own mind"; "Who art thou that judgest Another’s domestic?" Such
sentences assert not the right so much as the duty, for the individual Christian, of a
reverent "thinking for himself." They maintain a true and noble individualism. And there
is a special need just now in the Church to remember, in its place, the value of Christian
individualism. The idea of the community, the society, is just now so vastly prevalent
(doubtless not without the providence of God) in human life, and also in the Church, that
an assertion of the individual, which was once disproportionate, is now often necessary,
lest the social idea in its turn should be exaggerated into a dangerous mistake.
Coherence, mutuality, the truth of the Body and the Members; all this, in its place, is not
only important, but divine. The individual must inevitably lose where individualism is
his whole idea. But it is ill for the community, above all for the Church, where in the total
the individual tends really to be merged and lost. Alas for the Church where the Church
tries to take the individual’s place in the knowledge of God, in the love of Christ, in the
power of the Spirit. The religious Community must indeed inevitably lose where religious
communism is its whole idea. It can be perfectly strong only where individual
consciences are tender and enlightened; where individual souls personally know God in
Christ; where individual wills are ready, if the Lord call, to stand alone for known truth
even against the religious Society; -if there also the individualism is not self-will, but
Christian personal responsibility; if the man "thinks for himself" on his knees; if he
reverences the individualism of others, and the relations of each to all.
The individualism of Rom_14:1-23, asserted in an argument full of the deepest secrets of
cohesion, is the holy and healthful thing it is because it is Christian. It is developed not
by the assertion of self, but by individual communion with Christ.
Now he goes on to further and still fuller statements in the same direction.
For none of us to himself lives, and none of us to himself dies. How, and wherefore? Is it
merely that "we" live lives always, necessarily related to one another? He has this in his
heart indeed. But he reaches it through the greater, deeper, antecedent truth of our
relation to the Lord. The Christian is related to his brother Christian through Christ, not
to Christ through his brother, or through the common Organism in which the brethren
are "each other’s limbs." "To the Lord," with absolute directness, with a perfect and
wonderful immediateness, each individual Christian is first related. His life and his death
are "to others," but through him. The Master’s claim is eternally first; for it is based
direct upon the redeeming work in which He bought us for Himself.
For whether we live, to the Lord we live; and whether we be dead, to the Lord we are
dead; in the state of the departed, as before, "relation stands." Alike, therefore, whether
we be dead, or whether we live, the Lord’s we are; His property, bound first and in
everything to His possession. For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He
might become Lord of us both dead and living.
Here is the profound truth seen already in earlier passages in the Epistle. We have had it
reasoned out, above all in the sixth chapter, in its revelation of the way of Holiness, that
our only possible right relations with the Lord are clasped and governed by the fact that
to Him we rightly and everlastingly belong. There, however, the thought was more of our

surrender under his rights. Here it is of the mighty antecedent fact, under which our
most absolute surrender is nothing more than the recognition of His indefeasible claim.
What the Apostle says here, in this wonderful passage of mingled doctrine and duty, is
that, whether or no we are owning our vassalage to Christ, we are nothing if not de jure
His vassals. He has not only rescued us, but so rescued us as to buy us for His own. We
may be true to the fact in our internal attitude; we may be oblivious of it; but we cannot
get away from it. It looks us every hour in the face, whether we respond or not. It will still
look us in the face through the endless life to come.
For manifestly it is this objective aspect of our "belonging" which is here in point. St.
Paul, is not reasoning with the "weak" and the "strong" from their experience, from their
conscious loyalty to the Lord. Rather, he is calling them to a new realisation of what such
loyalty should be. It is in order to this that he reminds them of the eternal claim of the
Lord, made good in His death and Resurrection; His claim to be so their Master,
individually and altogether, that every thought about each other was to be governed by
that claim of His on them all. "The Lord" must always interpose; with a right inalienable.
Each Christian is annexed, by all the laws of Heaven, to Him. So each must-not make,
but realise that annexation, in every thought about neighbour and about brother.
The passage invites us meantime to further remark, in another direction. It is one of
those utterances which, luminous with light given by their context, shine also with a light
of their own, giving us revelations independent of the surrounding matter. Here one such
revelation appears; it affects our knowledge of the Intermediate State.
The Apostle, four times over in this short paragraph, makes mention of death, and of the
dead. "No one of us dieth to Himself"; "Whether we die, we die unto the Lord"; "Whether
we die, we are the Lord’s"; "That He might be the Lord of the dead." And this last
sentence, with its mention not of the dying, but of the dead, reminds us that the
reference in them all is to the Christian’s relation to his Lord, not only in the hour of
death, but in the state after death. It is not only that Jesus Christ, as the slain One risen,
is absolute Disposer of the time and manner of our dying. It is not only that when our
death comes we are to accept it as an opportunity for the "glorifying of God" (Joh_21:19,
Php_1:20) in the sight and in the memory of those who know of it. It is that when we
have "passed through death," and come out upon the other side,
"When we enter yonder regions, When we touch the sacred shore," our relation to the
slain One risen, to Him who, as such, "hath the keys of Hades and of death," (Rev_1:18)
is perfectly continuous and the same. He is our absolute Master, there as well as here.
And we, by consequence and correlation, are vassals, servants, bondservants to Him,
there as well as here.
Here is a truth which, we cannot but think, richly repays the Christian’s repeated
remembrance and reflection; and that not only in the way of asserting the eternal rights
of our blessed Redeemer over us, but in the way of shedding light, and peace, and the
sense of reality and expectation, on both the prospect of our own passage into eternity
and the thoughts we entertain of the present life of our holy beloved ones who have
entered into it before us.
Everything is precious which really assists the soul in such thoughts, and at the same
time keeps it fully and practically alive to the realities of faith, patience, and obedience
here below, here in the present hour. While the indulgence of unauthorised imagination
in that direction is almost always enervating and disturbing to the present action of
Scriptural faith, the least help to a solid realisation and anticipation, supplied by the
Word that cannot lie, is in its nature both hallowing and strengthening. Such a help we

have assuredly here.
He who died and rose again is at this hour, in holy might and right, "the Lord" of the
blessed dead. Then, the blessed dead are vassals and servants of Him who died and rose
again. And all our thought of them, as they are now, at this hour, "in those heavenly
habitations, where the souls of them that sleep in the Lord Jesus enjoy perpetual rest and
felicity," gains indefinitely in life, in reality, in strength and glory, as we see them,
through this narrow but bright "door in heaven," (Rev_5:1) not resting only but serving
also before their Lord, who has bought them for His use, and who holds them in His use
quite as truly now as when we had the joy of their presence with us, and He was seen by
us living and working in them and through them here.
True it is that the leading and essential character of their present state is rest, as that of
their resurrection state will be action. But the two states overflow into each other. In one
glorious passage the Apostle describes the resurrection bliss as also "rest". (2Th_1:7)
And here we have it indicated that the heavenly intermediate rest is also service. What
the precise nature of that service is we cannot tell. "Our knowledge of that life is small."
Most certainly, "in vain our fancy strives to paint" its blessedness, both of repose and of
occupation. This is part of our normal and God-chosen lot here, which is to "walk by
faith, not by sight," (2Co_5:7) ού διά είδους, "not by Object seen," not by objects seen. But
blessed is the spiritual assistance in such a walk as we recollect, step by step, as we draw
nearer to that happy assembly above, that, whatever be the manner and exercise of their
holy life, it is life indeed; power, not weakness; service, not inaction. He who died and
revived is Lord, not of us only, but of them.
But from this excursion into the sacred Unseen we must return. St. Paul is intent now
upon the believer’s walk of loving large heartedness in this life, not the next. But you-why
do you judge your brother? (he takes up the verb, κρίνειν, used in his former appeal to
the "weak," Rom_14:3). Or you too (he turns to the "strong"; see again Rom_14:3)-why
do you despise your brother? For we shall stand, all of us, on one level, whatever were
our mutual sentiments on earth, whatever claim we made here to sit as judges on our
brethren, before the tribunal of our God. For it stands written, (Isa_45:23) "As I live,
saith the Lord, sure it is as My eternal Being, that to Me, not to another, shall bend every
knee; and every tongue shall confess, shall ascribe all sovereignty, to God," not to the
creature. So then each of us, about himself, not about the faults or errors of his brother,
shall give account to God.
We have here, as in 2Co_5:10, and again, under other imagery, 1Co_3:11-15, a glimpse of
that heart-searching prospect for the Christian, his summons hereafter, as a Christian, to
the tribunal of his Lord. In all the three passages, and now particularly in this, the
language, though it lends itself freely to the universal Assize, is limited by context, as to
its direct purport, to the Master’s scrutiny of His own servants as such. The question to
be tried and decided (speaking after the manner of men) at His "tribunal," in this
reference, is not that of glory or perdition; the persons of the examined are accepted; the
inquiry is in the domestic court of the Palace, so to speak; it regards the award of the
King as to the issues and value of His accepted servants’ labour and conduct, as His
representatives, in their mortal life. "The Lord of the servants cometh, and reckoneth
with them". (Mat_25:19) They have been justified by faith. They have been united to
their glorious Head. They "shall be saved," (1Co_3:15) whatever be the fate of their
"work." But what will their Lord say of their work? What have they done for Him, in
labour, in witness, and above all in character? He will tell them what He thinks. He will
be infinitely kind; but He will not flatter. And somehow, surely, -"it doth not yet appear"

how, but somehow-eternity, even the eternity of salvation, will bear the impress of that
award, the impress of the past of service, estimated by the King. "What shall the harvest
be?"
And all this shall take place (this is the special emphasis of the prospect here) with a
solemn individuality of inquiry. "Every one of us-for himself-shall give account." We
reflected, a little above, on the true place of "individualism" in the life of grace. We see
here that there will indeed be a place for it in the experiences of eternity. The scrutiny of
"the tribunal" will concern not the Society, the Organism, the total, but the member, the
man. Each will stand in a solemn solitude there, before his divine Examiner. What he
was, as the Lord’s member, that will be the question. What he shall be, as such, in the
functions of the endless state, that will be the result.
Let us not be troubled over that prospect with the trouble of the worldling, as if we did
not know Him who will scrutinise us, and did not love Him. Around the thought of His
"tribunal," in that aspect, there are cast no exterminating terrors. But it is a prospect fit
to make grave and full of purpose the life which yet "is hid with Christ in God," and
which is life indeed through grace. It is a deep reminder that the beloved Saviour is also,
and in no figure of speech, but in an eternal earnest, the Master too. We would not have
Him not to be this. He would not be all He is to us as Saviour, were He not this also, and
forever.
St. Paul hastens to further appeals, after this solemn forecast. And now all his stress is
laid on the duty of the "strong" to use their "strength" not for self-assertion, not for even
spiritual selfishness, but all for Christ, all for others, all in love.
No more therefore let us judge one another; but judge, decide, this rather-not to set
stumbling block for our brother, or trap. I know-he instances his own experience and
principle-and am sure in the Lord Jesus, as one who is in union and communion with
Him, seeing truth and life from that viewpoint, that nothing, nothing of the sort in
question, no food, no time, is "unclean" of itself; literally, "by means of itself," by any
inherent mischief; only to the man who counts anything "unclean," to him it is unclean.
And therefore you, because you are not his conscience, must not tamper with his
conscience. It is, in this case, mistaken; mistaken to his own loss, and to the loss of the
Church. Yes, but what it wants is not your compulsion, but the Lord’s light. If you can do
so, bring that light to bear, in a testimony made impressive by holy love and unselfish
considerateness. But dare not, for Christ’s sake, compel a conscience. For conscience
means the man’s best actual sight of the law of right and wrong. It may be a dim and
distorted sight; but it is his best at this moment. He cannot violate it without sin, nor can
you bid him do so without yourself sinning. Conscience may not always see aright. But to
transgress conscience is always wrong.
For-the word takes up the argument at large, rather than the last detail of it-if for food’s
sake your brother suffers pain, the pain of a moral struggle between his present
convictions and your commanding example, you have given up walking (ούκέτι
περιπατεις) love wise. Do not not, with your food, (there is a searching point in the
"your," touching to the quick the deep selfishness of the action,) work his ruin for whom
Christ died.
Such sentences are too intensely and tenderly in earnest to be called sarcastic; otherwise,
how fine and keen an edge they carry! "For food’s sake!" "With your food!" The man is
shaken out of the sleep of what seemed an assertion of liberty, but was after all much
rather a dull indulgence of-that is, a mere slavery to-himself. "I like this meat; I like this

Romans 14 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Romans 14 commentary

Similar to Romans 14 commentary (10)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Romans 14 commentary