Download to read offline
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-7-320.jpg)
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-8-320.jpg)
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-9-320.jpg)
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-23-320.jpg)
![(See 1Co_8:1-13).
CALVI , “2.Let him who believes, etc. What [Erasmus ] has followed among the various
readings I know not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’ words, is complete; and
instead of the relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “ indeed believes,” etc.
That I take the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a
mode of speaking very usual with Paul. (416) He then calls those believers who were endued with
a conscience fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the
mean time the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought
was not lawful. If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not
right that he who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who
are yet tender and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick,as some have
done, is absurd.
(416) This is true, but the passage here seems not to require such a CONSTRUCTION . Both
sentences are declarative, announcing a fact respecting two parties: the one believed he might eat
everything; the other did eat only herbs. The relative ὃς when repeated, often means “” as
in Rom_13:5, and in 1Co_11:21 : and the article ὁ stands here for that repetition; an example of
which Raphelius adduces from the Greek classics.
Some think that this abstinence from meat was not peculiar to the Jews; but that some Gentiles also
had scruples on the subject. It is true that heathens, who held the transmigration of souls, did not
eat flesh: but it is not likely that abstinence, arising from such an absurd notion, would have been
thus treated by the Apostle. It indeed appears evident, that the abstinence here referred to did arise
from what was regarded to be the will of God: and though abstinence from all animal food was not
enjoined on the Jews, yet it appears from HISTORY that Jews, living among heathens, wholly
abstained, owing to the fear they had of being in any way contaminated. This was the case with
Daniel and his companions, Dan_1:8. Professor [Hodge ] says, in a NOTE on this passage, “
states in his life (chapter 23) that certain Jewish priests, while at Rome, lived entirely upon fruit,
from the dread of eating anything unclean.” We may also suppose that some of the Essenes, who
abstained from meat and from wine, were among the early conver
MACARTHUR “The Jews had been raised to do what was kosher, which comes
from the Hebrew word kashar, meaning "fit" or "right." The primary focus of
kashar is on diet and the observation of special days. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy
14 detail the dietary restrictions. When Daniel was taken into captivity in Babylon
he was told to eat the king's food, which wasn't kosher (Dan. 1:5). Verse 8 says
Daniel decided not to eat it. He and his three friends, Hananiah, Azariah, and
Mishael, would not compromise their Jewish convictions. They were right in
maintaining the dietary laws because God had ordained them, and they still were
valid at that point in the history of Israel.”
Luther made it clear to his people that the old laws dealing with food are obsolete.
He said, “On the contrary, every day is a holiday, every kind of food is permitted,
every place is sacred, every time if suitable for fasting, every garment is allowed.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-36-320.jpg)
![JAMISO , “Let not him that eateth despise — look down superciliously upon “him
that eateth not.”
and let not him that eateth not judge — sit in judgment censoriously upon “him
that eateth.”
for God hath received him — as one of His dear children, who in this matter acts
not from laxity, but religious principle.
CALVI , “3.Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties.
They who were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were
scrupulous about insignificant things, and also derided them: these, on the other hand, were hardly
able to refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow; for whatever
they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil. Hence he exhorts the
former to refrain from contempt, and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason which
he adds, as it belongs to both parties, ought to be APPLIED to the two clauses, — “ you see,” he
says, “ man illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received
by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.” (417)
(417) The last clause is by [Haldane ] confined to the strong, and he objects to this extension of it;
and certainly the following verse is in favor of his view, for the weak, the condemner, is the person
reproved, and therefore the strong is he who to his own master stands or falls. The condemner
throughout is the weak, and the despised is the strong. — Ed
MEYER, “ CONSIDERATION TOWARD BRETHREN
Rom_14:1-12
The weak conscience needs further instruction. It is anemic and requires the hilltop, with
its further view and bracing air; but in the meantime its owner must be guided by its
promptings. A man must not take a certain course merely because others do so, unless he
can justify their bolder faith and larger freedom. By thought and prayer and the study of
God’s Word, conscience becomes educated and strengthened, and ceases to worry as to
whether we should be vegetarian or not; whether we should observe saints’ days, or
adopt a specific method of observing the Sabbath. Some people are constantly wondering
and questioning about such things, as though their eternal salvation depended on minute
observances.
Such would have found but scant comfort from the Apostle. He would have said, “Do the
best you know, and when you have once adopted a certain method of life, follow it
humbly, until some wider view is opened before you by the Spirit of God.” The main
principle for us all is to live and die to please our Lord. He is our Master, and it will be for
Him to allot our rewards. In the meantime let us not judge one another, but live in love,
leaving each to work out the plan of his own life as his Master directs.
John Stott writes: "the best way to determine what our attitude toward people](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-41-320.jpg)
![And drink but what I drink
Look only as I look
Do always as I do,
Then and only then
I’ll fellowship with you.
Does all this mean we are never to judge and condemn legalism? ot so, for
when it is a direct violation of God’s revealed will and when it is an offense to
the Gospel of freedom in Christ it is to be challenged and fought. Paul did this
when Peter fell back under the legalism of Judaism and refused to eat with
Gentiles. It was an offense to Paul and he called Peter on it in Gal. 2:11-14 This
was not a mere personal opinion or preference. It was a violation of God’s
revealed will. It was a prohibited behavior. The Jewish dietary laws had been
set aside in Acts 10:9-12, and Peter had clear revelation. He was influenced by
the legalism of Jewish converts who could not cut themselves off from the law
to enter into freedom in Christ.
Acts 15:1-35 details the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council. Some of the
church leaders wanted to hold to Judaism, especially a group known as Judaizers,
who claimed a person couldn't be a Christian unless he kept the Mosaic law and was
circumcised physically. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, said that some
of the Jews at Rome ate only fruit for fear of eating something unclean (cited by
Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1977 reprint], p. 417). But the dietary laws had been abrogated long
before. Jesus said, "There is nothing from outside of a man that, entering into him,
can defile him; but the things which come out of him" (Mark 7:15). The pressure
was on the Jews to maintain their heritage, and understandably they clung to it.
Judgment is valid
In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul says, "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel
unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Paul is pronouncing a
curse on anyone who preaches another gospel. The issue Paul is addressing is a
distortion of the message of redemption. In Galatians 4:8-9 he says, " evertheless
then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known by God, how turn ye again
to the weak and beggarly elements, unto which ye desire again to be in bondage?"
After Paul preached the gospel in Galatia, Judaizers followed and said that grace
can't save a person, claiming that true salvation must be accompanied by
circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law. In verses 10-11 Paul adds, "Ye
observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labor in vain." In Galatians 5:1 he concludes, "Stand fast,
therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage." In verses 3-4 he says, "I testify again to every man](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-51-320.jpg)
![should be dependent on the will of God, and never allow themselves to move even a finger, while
the mind is doubtful and vacillating; for it cannot be otherwise, but that rashness will soon pass over
into obstinacy when we dare to PROCEED further than what we are persuaded is lawful for us. If
any object and say, that infirmity is ever perplexing, and that hence such certainty as Paul requires
cannot exist in the weak: to this the plain answer is, — That such are to be pardoned, if they keep
themselves within their own limits. For Paul’ purpose was none other than to restrain undue liberty,
by which it happens, that many thrust themselves, as it were, at random, into matters which are
doubtful and undetermined. Hence Paul requires this to be adopted, — that the will of God is to
preside over all our actions.
(418) “Unusquisque sententiae suae certus sit ;” ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ νοὶ πληροφορείσθω
“unusquisque in animo suo plene certus esto — let every one be fully sure in his own mind,” [Beza ],
[Pareus ]; “ every one be convinced in his mind,” [Macknight ]; “ every one freely enjoy his own
sentiment,” [Doddridge ] This last is by no means the sense: Our own version is the best and the
most literal, “ every man be fully persuaded in his own mind;” and with which [Calvin ] ’ exposition
perfectly AGREES . For the meaning of the verb here see Rom_4:21. “ Greek word is a metaphor
borrowed from ships, which are carried with full sail, and signifieth a most certain persuasion of the
truth.” — [Leigh ]. The certain persuasion here refers to both parties — the eater and the abstainer:
both were to do what they were fully convinced was agreeable to the will of God. — Ed.
6He who regards one day as special, does so to the
Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he
gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so
to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
BAR ES, “He that regardeth - Greek, “Thinketh of;” or pays attention to; that is, he
that “observes” it as a festival, or as holy time.
The day - Any of the days under discussion; the days that the Jews kept as religious
occasions.
Regardeth unto the Lord - Regards it as “holy,” or as set apart to the service of
God. He believes that he is “required” by God to keep it, that is, that the laws of Moses in
regard to such days are binding on him.
He that regardeth not the day - Or who does not observe such distinctions of days
as are demanded in the laws of Moses.
To the Lord ... - That is, he does not believe that God “requires” such an observance.
He that eateth - The Gentile Christian, who freely eats all kinds of meat; Rom_14:2.
Eateth to the Lord - Because he believes that God does not forbid it; and because he
desires, in doing it, to glorify God; 1Co_10:31. “To eat to the Lord,” in this case, is to do it
believing that such is his will. In all other cases, it is to do it feeling that we receive our](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-67-320.jpg)
![men and women alike, all brothers and sisters together, must individually stand
before God's judgment seat."
MACARTHUR
"We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ [God]."
The Greek text says "God" [theou] not "Christ." It is in 2 Corinthians 5:10 where it
is called the judgment seat of Christ. Those two verses are more evidence of the
deity of Christ because He is spoken of interchangeably with God. First Corinthians
3:12-13 says that when we stand before the judgment seat our works will be put on
display, whether gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble. First
Corinthians 4:5 says the Lord "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and
will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise
of God."
b) All will bow in judgment (v. 11)
"It is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue
shall confess to God."
That is a quote from Isaiah 45:23. Paul used a portion of that same verse in
Philippians 2:10-11. Every one of us at one point in the future will bow before the
judgment of God. When we judge others, we are playing God--and that's a
blasphemous thing to do.
CALVI , “10.But thou, why dost thou, etc. As he had made the life and death of us all subject to
Christ, he now PROCEEDS to mention the authority to judge, which the Father has conferred on
him, together with the dominion over heaven and earth. He hence concludes, that it is an
unreasonable boldness in any one to assume the power to judge his brother, since by taking such a
liberty he robs Christ the Lord of the power which he alone has received from the Father.
But first, by the term brother, he CHECKS this lust for judging; for since the Lord has established
among us the right of a fraternal alliance, an equality ought to be preserved; every one then who
assumes the character of a judge acts unreasonably. Secondly, he calls us before the only true
judge, from whom no one can take away his power, and whose tribunal none can escape. As then it
would be absurd among men for a criminal, who ought to occupy a humble place in the court, to
ascend the tribunal of the judge; so it is absurd for a Christian to take to himself the liberty of judging
the conscience of his brother. A similar argument is mentioned by James, when he says, that “ who
judges his brother, judges the law,” and that “ who judges the law, is not an observer of the law but
a president;” and, on the other hand, he says, that “ is but one lawgiver, who can save and destroy.”
(Jas_4:12.) He has ascribed tribunal to Christ, which means his power to judge, as the voice of the
archangel, by which we shall be summoned, is called, in another place, a trumpet; for it will pierce,
as it were with its sound, into the minds and ears of all.(423)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-87-320.jpg)
![(423) The words “ shall all stand,” etc., may be rendered, “ must all stand,” etc. It is indeed the
future tense, but this is ACCORDING to what is often the case in Hebrew, for in that language
the future has frequently this meaning. Rom_13:12 may be rendered in the same manner, “ then
every one of us must give ACCOUNT of himself to God.” — Ed.
11It is written:
" 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
'every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.' "[a]
BAR ES, “For it is written - This passage is recorded in Isa_45:23. It is not quoted
literally, but the sense is preserved. In Isaiah there can be no doubt that it refers to
Yahweh. The speaker expressly calls himself Yahweh, the name which is appropriate to
God alone, and which is never applied to a creature; Rom_14:18. In the place before us,
the words are applied by Paul expressly to Christ; compare Rom_14:10. This mode of
quotation is a strong incidental proof that the apostle regarded the Lord Jesus as divine.
On no other principle could he have made these quotations.
As I live - The Hebrew is, “I have sworn by myself.” One expression is equivalent to
the other. An “oath” of God is often expressed by the phrase “as I live;” Num_14:21;
Isa_49:18; Eze_5:11; Eze_14:16, etc.
Saith the Lord - These words are not in the Hebrew text, but are added by the
apostle to show that the passage quoted was spoken by the Lord, the Messiah; compare
Isa_45:18, Isa_45:22.
Every knee shall bow to me - To bow the knee” is an act expressing homage,
submission, or adoration. It means that every person shall acknowledge him as God, and
admit his right to universal dominion. The passage in Isaiah refers particularly to the
homage which “his own people” should render to him; or rather, it means that all who
are saved shall acknowledge “him” as their God and Saviour. The original reference was
not to “all men,” but only to those who should be saved; Isa_45:17, Isa_45:21-22,
Isa_45:24. In this sense the apostle uses it; not as denoting that “all men” should confess
to God, but that all “Christians,” whether Jewish or Gentile converts, should alike give
account to Him. “They” should all bow before their common God, and acknowledge “his”
dominion over them. The passage originally did not refer particularly to the day of
judgment, but expressed the truth that all believers should acknowledge his dominion. It
is as applicable, however, to the judgment, as to any other act of homage which his
people will render.
Every tongue shall confess to God - In the Hebrew, “Every tongue shall swear.”
Not swear “by God,” but “to him;” that is, pay to him our vows, or “answer to him on
oath” for our conduct; and this is the same as confessing to him, or acknowledging him](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-88-320.jpg)
![GILL, “So then everyone of us,.... this is the conclusion, drawn from the foregoing
account of things, that there will be a general judgment, that Christ will be Judge, and all
must appear at his bar; from whence it necessarily follows, that every man, and so every
Christian, strong or weak, whatever may be his gifts, talents, and abilities,
shall give an account of himself to God; that is, to Christ, who is God; which is
another proof of his deity, for he will be the Judge, the Father will judge no man; it is
before his judgment seat all shall stand; and therefore the account must be given to him
by every one, of himself, and not another; of all his thoughts, words, and deeds, which
will be all brought into judgment; and of his time and talents, how they have been spent
and used; and of all his gifts of nature, providence, and grace, how they have been
exercised for the glory of God, his own good, and the good of others: the formal manner
in which this will be done is unknown unto us; however, this is certain, that the saints
will have upon this reckoning, in what sort soever it may be, a full and open discharge,
through the blood and righteousness of Christ. The Jews (q), say, in much such language
as the apostle does, that
"when a man removes out of this world, then למאריה חושבנאיהיב , "he gives an account to his
Lord", of all that he has done in the world.''
HE RY, “Because both the one and the other must shortly give an account,
Rom_14:10-12. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day would silence all
these rash judgings: Why dost thou that art weak judge thy brother that is strong? And
why dost thou that art strong set at nought thy brother that is weak? Why is all this
clashing, and contradicting, and censuring, among Christians? We shall all stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ, 2Co_5:10. Christ will be the judge, and he has both
authority and ability to determine men's eternal state according to their works, and
before him we shall stand as persons to be tried, and to give up an account, expecting our
final doom from him, which will be eternally conclusive. To illustrate this (Rom_14:11),
he quotes a passage out of the Old Testament, which speaks of Christ's universal
sovereignty and dominion, and that established with an oath: As I live (saith the Lord),
every knee shall bow to me. It is quoted from Isa_45:23. There it is, I have sworn by
myself; here it is, As I live. So that whenever God saith As I live, it is to be interpreted as
swearing by himself; for it is God's prerogative to have life in himself: there is a further
ratification of it there, The word is gone out of my mouth. It is a prophecy, in general, of
Christ's dominion; and here very fully applied to the judgment of the great day, which
will be the highest and most illustrious exercise of that dominion. Here is a proof of
Christ's Godhead: he is the Lord and he is God, equal with the Father. Divine honour is
due to him, and must be paid. It is paid to God through him as Mediator. God will judge
the world by him, Act_17:31. The bowing of the knee to him, and the confession made
with the tongue, are but outward expressions of inward adoration and praise. Every
knee and every tongue, either freely or by force.
[1.] All his friends do it freely, are made willing in the day of his power. Grace is the
soul's cheerful, entire, and avowed subjection to Jesus Christ. First, Bowing to him - the
understanding bowed to his truths, the will to his laws, the whole man to his authority;](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-92-320.jpg)
![and this expressed by the bowing of the knee, the posture of adoration and prayer. It is
proclaimed before our Joseph, Bow the knee, Gen_41:43. Though bodily exercise alone
profits little, yet, as it is guided by inward fear and reverence, it is accepted. Secondly,
Confessing to him - acknowledging his glory, grace, and greatness - acknowledging our
own meanness and vileness, confessing our sins to him; so some understand it.
[2.] All his foes shall be constrained to do it, whether they will or no. When he shall
come in the clouds, and every eye shall see him, then, and not till then, will all those
promises which speak of his victories over his enemies and their subjection to him have
their full and complete accomplishment; then his foes shall be his footstool, and all his
enemies shall lick the dust. hence he concludes (Rom_14:12), Every one of us shall give
account of himself to God. We must not give account for others, nor they for us; but
every one for himself. We must give account how we have spent our time, how we have
improved our opportunities, what we have done and how we have done it. And therefore,
First, We have little to do to judge others, for they are not accountable to us, nor are we
accountable for them (Gal_2:6): Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God
accepteth no man's person. Whatever they are, and whatever they do, they must give
account to their own master, and not to us; if we can in any thing be helpers of their joy,
it is well; but we have not dominion over their faith. And, Secondly, We have the more to
do to judge ourselves. We have an account of our own to make up, and that is enough for
us; let every man prove his own work (Gal_6:4), state his own accounts, search his own
heart and life; let this take up his thoughts, and he that is strict in judging himself and
abasing himself will not be apt to judge and despise his brother. let all these differences
be referred to the arbitration of Christ at the great day.
JAMISO , “So then — infers the apostle.
every one of us shall give account of himself to God — Now, if it be
remembered that all this is adduced quite incidentally, to show that Christ is the absolute
Master of all Christians, to rule their judgments and feelings towards each other while
“living,” and to dispose of them “dying,” the testimony which it bears to the absolute
Divinity of Christ will appear remarkable. On any other view, the quotation to show that
we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God would be a strange proof that
Christians are all amenable to Christ.
ot an account of your brother or sister in Christ, or your pagan friends, but of
yourself. Get your own life in order and do not spend so much time trying to get
others in line. You answer for yourself. Imagine standing before God giving him an
honest evaluation of just how you lived to do his will and please him. God will not
seek from you how you feel about someone else’s life. God will want from us a
statement on how we have treated others who differ from us, and this means there
will be some terribly embarrassed believers before God. Those who have given their
lives to being critics of others will not be very comfortable when it is their turn.
Those who have acted like the famous Greek mythology bandit Procrustes will be
sweating as they wait. He had the idea that all people would be better off if they
were the same size, and so he had his bed on which he would stretch short people to
make them the right length, and cut off the legs of long people to make them fit his
bed. Those who think all people should be the same are opposing the very plan of
God for variety in man.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-93-320.jpg)
![“John Stott points out that there is play on words in the original Greek, which has a
double use of the word "judge." The EB catches this with its translation, "Let us
therefore cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment."[1]
Christians should refuse to do anything to harm the spiritual walk of a "weaker"
believer. We must choose to limit our freedom if it causes our brother or sister to
stumble or fall in their Christian walk
Paul acknowledges the predicament that every strong believer faces with regard to
these peripheral issues. First, the strong believer knows, "nothing is unclean in
itself." Paul wrote to Timothy: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing
is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude" (1 Tim 4:4). There was only one
forbidden tree in the garden, not a whole forest of trees. There are not a lot of
absolutes. The Christian who is strong in faith understands that the world is ours to
enjoy. But there is another truth that must be faced that poses a dilemma for the
strong Christian: "but to him who thinks anything to be unclean [because of his
conscience], to him it is unclean." So the "strong" Christian faces what looks like a
paradox. Some activities can be both good and bad at the same time. The "strong"
Christian believes that a certain activity is all right while the "weak" Christian
thinks it isn't. What does the one who is "strong" do in such cases?
Stott writes: "Although the "strong" believer is correct, and he (Paul) shares his
convictions (because the Lord Jesus endorsed it), he must not ride roughshod . . .
over his brother's conscience (even though his conscience is mistaken)...by imposing
his view on him."[2] The reason is that we may harm our brother. And not merely
because he sees us doing something he disapproves of; that isn't the issue. The
concern is that he may be swayed to follow an example that goes against his
conscience. When we do that we are no longer walking in love, because love never
disregards a weak conscience. Love limits its own liberty out of respect for others.
Wounding a weaker brother's conscience by imposing our views on him is not only
to distress him, it may destroy him. If exercising your freedom leads your brother to
sin, then don't do it. Don't force people to do things they don't feel free to do.
Imagine crossing a swaying bridge over a mountain stream. Some people can run
across a bridge like that even though it doesn't have handrails. They are not
alarmed by that; they have good balance. But others can't do that; they are afraid of
falling into the torrent below. They shake and tremble, inching their way along.
They may even get down on their hands and knees and crawl across. But give them
time, let them go at their own speed, and they will make it. After a few crossings
they gain courage, and eventually they are able to run right across.
It is the same with these issues that Paul is speaking about. Some people just can't
see themselves moving in a certain area which they have been raised to think is
wrong. As with the swaying bridge, it would be cruel for someone who has the
freedom to cross boldly to take the arm of one who is timid and force him to run
across. He might even lose his balance and fall off the bridge.
This is what Paul is warning against. It is unloving to force people to move at your
pace. Refusing to indulge a freedom that you enjoy, for the sake of someone else,
and adjusting to his pace, is surely one of the clearest and truest exercises of
Christian love. And notice the clear perspective that love has on the weaker](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-101-320.jpg)
![could derive the same supplies.
II. Though He died to save all, some will be destroyed. The truth has no practical
influence on a man unless he studies it, and he may study it or not, rightly or not, the
provision does not stream its blessings into a man, irrespective of his choice or efforts.
The sun will not give its light to a man unless he open his eyes, nor will the water allay
his burning thirst unless he drinks it in. “Ye will not come unto Me,” etc.
III. This destruction may be effected by a brother. One man can and often does
spiritually ruin another by his suggestions, his spirit, his example. Whilst God saves man
by man the devil damns man by man. Through man the spiritually restorative and
destructive forces of the universe are everlastingly working.
IV. The brother may do this by a trifling thing—“meat.” By urging thy ceremonial
observances thou art likely to ruin him; leave him free to his own conscience. As an
invisible atom can destroy animal life, a little sin can damn a soul. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully
convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But
if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
him it is unclean.
BAR ES, “I know - This is an admission made to the “Gentile” convert, who believed
that it was lawful to partake of food of every kind. This the apostle concedes; and says he
is fully apprized of this. But though he knew this, yet he goes on to say Rom_14:15, that it
would be well to regard the conscientious scruples of others on the subject. It may be
remarked here that the apostle Paul had formerly quite as many scruples as any of his
brethren had then. But his views had been changed.
And am persuaded - Am convinced.
By the Lord Jesus - This does not mean by any “personal” instruction received from
the Lord Jesus, but by all the knowledge which he had received by inspiration of the
nature of the Christian religion. The gospel of Jesus had taught him that the rites of the
Mosaic economy had been abolished, and among those rites were the rules respecting
clean and unclean beasts, etc.
There is nothing unclean - Greek “common.” This word was used by the Jews to
denote what was “unclean,” because, in their apprehension, whatever was partaken by
the multitude, or all people, must be impure. Hence, the words “common” and “impure”
are often used as expressing the same thing. It denotes what was forbidden by the laws of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-111-320.jpg)
![lest they thought that they were bound to observe those rites from which Christ had made them
free. By the exception which he has laid down, we learn that there is nothing so pure but what may
be contaminated by a corrupt conscience: for it is faith alone and godliness which sanctify all things
to us. The unbelieving, being polluted within, defile all things by their very touch. (Titus 1:15.)
(427) To elicit this meaning, which is in itself true, [Calvin ] must have construed the sentence thus,
“ know, and I am persuaded, that through the Lord Jesus nothing is of itself unclean:” but this is not
the meaning. What the Apostle says is, that he knew, and was fully assured by the Lord Jesus, that
is, by the teaching of his word Spirit, that nothing was in itself unclean, all ceremonial distinctions
having been now removed and abolished. — Ed.
15If your brother is distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not
by your eating destroy your brother for whom
Christ died.
BAR ES, “But if thy brother ... - This address is to the “Gentile” convert. In the
previous verse, Paul admitted. that the prejudice of the Jew was not well-founded. But
admitting that still the question was, “how” he should be treated while he had that
prejudice. The apostle here shows the Gentile that “he” ought not so to act as
unnecessarily to wound his feelings, or to grieve him.
Be grieved - Be pained; as a conscientious man always is, when he sees another, and
especially a Christian brother, do anything which “he” esteems to be wrong. The “pain”
would be real, though the “opinion” from which it arose might not be well founded.
With thy meat - Greek, On account of meat, or food; that is, because “you” eat what
he regards as unclean.
Now walkest - To “walk,” in the Sacred Scriptures, often denotes to act, or to do a
thing; Mar_7:5; Act_21:21; Rom_6:4; Rom_8:1, Rom_8:4. Here it means that if the
Gentile convert persevered in the use of such food, notwithstanding the conscientious
scruples of the Jew, he violated the law of love.
Charitably - Greek, According to charity, or love; that is, he would violate that law
which required him to sacrifice his own comfort to promote the happiness of his brother;
1Co_13:5; 1Co_10:24, 1Co_10:28-29; Phi_2:4, Phi_2:21.
Destroy not him - The word “destroy” here refers, doubtless, to the ruin of the soul
in hell. It properly denotes ruin or destruction, and is applied to the ruin or “corruption”
of various things, in the New Testament. To life Mat_10:39; to a reward, in the sense of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-116-320.jpg)
![matter of importance, and the rather to be attended to, since it is the peace of one that
belongs to Christ, whom he has so loved as to die for, and therefore should be the object
of the regard and affections of such as believe in Christ and love him.
HE RY, “Consider the royal law of Christian love and charity, which is hereby broken
(v. 15): If thy brother be grieved with thy meat - be troubled to see thee eat those things
which the law of Moses did forbid, which yet thou mayest lawfully do; possibly thou art
ready to say, “Now he talks foolishly and weakly, and it is no great matter what he says.”
We are apt, in such a case, to lay all the blame on that side. But the reproof is here given
to the stronger and more knowing Christian: Now walkest thou not charitably. Thus the
apostle takes part with the weakest, and condemns the defect in love on the one side
more than the defect in knowledge on the other side; agreeably to his principles
elsewhere, that the way of love is the more excellent way, 1Co_12:31. Knowledge puffeth
up, but charity edifieth, 1Co_8:1-3. Now walkest thou not charitably. Charity to the
souls of our brethren is the best charity. True love would make us tender of their peace
and purity, and beget a regard to their consciences as well as to our own. Christ deals
gently with those that have true grace, though they are weak in it.
[2.] Consider the design of Christ's death: Destroy not him with thy meat for whom
Christ died, Rom_14:15. First, Drawing a soul to sin threatens the destruction of that
soul. By shaking his faith, provoking his passion, and tempting him to act against the
light of his own conscience, thou dost, as much as in thee lies, destroy him, giving him an
occasion to return to Judaism. Mē apollue. It denotes an utter destruction. The beginning
of sin is as the letting forth of water; we are not sure that it will stop any where on this
side of eternal destruction. Secondly, The consideration of the love of Christ in dying for
souls should make us very tender of the happiness and salvation of souls, and careful not
to do any thing which may obstruct and hinder them. Did Christ quit a life for souls, such
a life, and shall not we quit a morsel of meat for them? Shall we despise those whom
Christ valued at so high a rate? Did he think it worth while to deny himself so much for
them as to die for them, and shall not we think it worth while to deny ourselves so little
for them as abstaining from flesh comes to? - with thy meat. Thou pleadest that it is thy
own meat, and thou mayest do what thou wilt with it; but remember that, though the
meat is thine, the brother offended by it is Christ's, and a part of his purchase. While
thou destroyest thy brother thou art helping forward the devil's design, for he is the great
destroyer; and, as much as in thee lies, thou art crossing the design of Christ, for he is the
great Saviour, and dost not only offend thy brother, but offend Christ; for the work of
salvation is that which his heart is upon. But are any destroyed for whom Christ died? If
we understand it of the sufficiency and general intendment of Christ's death, which was
to save all upon gospel terms, no doubt but multitudes are. If of the particular
determination of the efficacy of his death to the elect, then, though none that were given
to Christ shall perish (Joh_6:39), yet thou mayest, as much as is in thy power, destroy
such. No thanks to thee if they be not destroyed; by doing that which has a tendency to it,
thou dost manifest a great opposition to Christ. Nay, and thou mayest utterly destroy
some whose profession may be so justifiable that thou art bound to believe, in a
judgment of charity, that Christ died for them. Compare this with 1Co_8:10, 1Co_8:11.
JAMISO , “But if thy brother be grieved — has his weak conscience hurt
with thy meat — rather, “because of meat.” The word “meat” is purposely selected as](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-119-320.jpg)
![something contemptible in contrast with the tremendous risk run for its sake.
Accordingly, in the next clause, that idea is brought out with great strength.
Destroy not him with — “by”
thy meat for whom Christ died — “The worth of even the poorest and weakest
brother cannot be more emphatically expressed than by the words, ‘for whom Christ
died’” [Olshausen]. The same sentiment is expressed with equal sharpness in 1Co_8:11.
Whatever tends to make anyone violate his conscience tends to the destruction of his
soul; and he who helps, whether wittingly or no, to bring about the one is guilty of
aiding to accomplish the other.
If Jesus was willing to give up His life for the sake of that brother, I can certainly
give up my steak dinner! The bottom line with Paul is always love. That is the final
answer to many controversial questions-differ in love and do not be offensive to one
another. The right thing is always the loving thing. Love will sacrifice freedom to do
certain things when it will hurt someone else. You have a right to do it, but you
have a loving reason not to, and love must win.
MACARTHUR The key point is in Romans 14:15: "Walkest thou not in love?" You
need to be sure that the exercise of your liberty is not unloving and insensitive to
other believers. The objective of a strong believer in the church of Christ is to
conduct himself in love toward a weaker brother.
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul was dealing with some of the Gentiles in Corinth who had
trouble eating or drinking what had been offered to idols. Some of the more
liberated brethren were not concerned about that because they knew an idol was
nothing; therefore anything offered to nothing is nothing. So there was potential for
conflict in the church. In verse 9 Paul says, "Take heed lest by any means this
liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." How does that
happen? Paul continues, "For if any man see thee, who hast knowledge, sitting at
the table in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him who is weak be
emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols, and through thy
knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (vv. 10-11). When
you exercise your freedom, and your brother sees that you are free to do what he
thinks is wrong, he might be tempted to follow your example. But when he does, his
conscience is guilty because he truly believes it is wrong. So the strong believer has
inadvertantly created a guilty conscience in the weak brother, causing him to
stumble. It is possible the weaker brother might return into an old pattern of sin. He
might go back to an idol feast and get caught up in the orgy and debauchery of it,
with disastrous results.
The Concept of Destruction
The Greek word translated "destroy" is apollumi, which means "to ruin." It is a
very strong and serious word. It is translated frequently in Scripture as "perish." It
can have several meanings:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-120-320.jpg)
![1. Damnation
John 3:16 says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Second
Peter 3:9 says God is "not willing that any should perish." Other verses using
apollumi are Matthew 10:28, Luke 13:3, Romans 2:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3, and 2
Thessalonians 2:10. The word can have the meaning of eternal destruction when
referring to unbelievers.
2. Death
Apollumi also can be a general term for the death or elimination of something.
a) 1 Corinthians 1:19--"It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." God will wipe out the folly of
those who suppose themselves to be wise in their worldly philosophies.
b) 1 Corinthians 10:9-10--Paul said that the people of Israel were "destroyed by
serpents." Then he said, " either murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and
were destroyed by the destroyer."
The word is used in this general sense also in Hebrews 1:11, James 1:11, and 1 Peter
1:7.
3. Spiritual loss
Apollumi is also used in Scripture to speak of believers. When it is so used, it has
some latitude.
a) Matthew 18:14--Matthew 18 is a familiar chapter on the childlikeness of the
believer. Verse 14 says, "It is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one
of these little ones should perish." That verse is part of a passage about not
offending Christians. It is a great parallel to Romans 14. Matthew 18:6 says that
true believers are like little children. Verse 3 says, "Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God." In verse 6
Jesus says that anyone who offends a believer would be better off drowned.
In verse 10 Jesus says, "Take heed that ye despise not [Gk., kataphroneo, "look
down on"] one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do
always behold the face of my Father, who is in heaven." In verses 12-13 Jesus shows
how concerned the Father and the angels are over believers: "If a man have an
hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and
nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so
be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more over that sheep than over
the ninety and nine which went not astray." God is the shepherd and the sheep are
His own. Verse 14 says, "It is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-121-320.jpg)
![Some people believe that phrase proves Christ died only for the elect--only for those
who believe and not anyone else. That view is characteristic of historic Calvinism.
Many scriptures teach Christ did die specifically for believers. Let me give you a few
samples.
(1) Matthew 1:21--An angel said, "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his
name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins."
(2) John 10:15--Jesus said, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;
and I lay down my life for the sheep." Did Christ die only for the sheep? That verse
certainly implies He did.
(3) Galatians 1:4--Paul says this of the Lord Jesus Christ: "[He] gave himself for our
sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age." The word "us" refers to
believers.
(4) Ephesians 5:2--Paul said, "Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath
given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God."
(5) Ephesians 5:25--Paul said, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved
the church, and gave himself for it."
All those scriptures specifically say that Christ died for believers--for the elect. That
is what theologians have called "particular redemption." They claim Christ did not
die for the whole world--He died only for those who are or who will be redeemed.
They fear that if Christ died for the whole world, but the whole world doesn't
believe, then Christ died in futility. So to save Christ from a futile act, they
particularize redemption.
b) Unlimited atonement
Let me show you some verses that give a different perspective.
(1) John 1:29--"The next day John [the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
saith, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world."
(2) John 3:15-17--John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life. for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but
that the world through him might be saved."
(3) John 6:51--Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if
any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give him is
my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-123-320.jpg)
![(4) Romans 10:13--Paul said, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall
be saved."
(5) 2 Corinthians 5:14--Paul wrote, "The love of Christ constraineth us, because we
thus judge that, if one died for all, then were all dead." The parallelism is
inescapable. The reverse is: since all are dead in sin, therefore Christ died for all.
(6) 1 Timothy 2:3-4--Paul said that, "God, our Savior ... will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."
(7) 1 Timothy 4:10--"Therefore, we both labor and suffer reproach, because we
trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."
(8) 2 Peter 2:1--"There were false prophets also among the people, even as there
shall be false teachers among you, who secretly shall bring in destructive heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them." The Lord paid the penalty for sin of even
the heretic, the apostate, the false teacher, and the unbeliever.
(9) 1 John 2:2--John tells us that Christ "is the propitiation [covering] for our sins,
and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
(10) 1 John 4:14--John said, "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the
Son to be the Savior of the world."
Those passages leave no doubt that Christ died for all mankind. Certainly there are
passages that say Jesus died for the elect, but we can't conclude from them alone
that He didn't die for the rest. I can say that Christ died on the cross for John
MacArthur, but that is not necessarily an exclusive statement. Any verse that
particularizes redemption to believers does not exclude that He died for the world as
well.
2. The parallel
In the Old Covenant, the high point of the Jewish calendar each year was the Day of
Atonement. On that day the sins of the nation were atoned for. Leviticus 16:15-17
says that the High Priest is to "kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people,
and bring its blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood
of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat. And
he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the
children of Israel, and because of their transgression in all their sins; and so shall he
do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst
of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the
congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he
come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for
all the congregation of Israel." Verse 30 says, "On that day shall the priest make an](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-124-320.jpg)
![atonement for you, to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before
the Lord." Verses 33-34 conclude, "He shall make an atonement for the holy
sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation,
and for the altar; and he shall make an atonement for the priest, and for all the
people of the congregation. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to
make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year."
Was that a limited or unlimited atonement? It was unlimited. That atonement made
for the whole nation did not necessarily guarantee the individual salvation of
everyone in the nation-- salvation then as now had to be personally appropriated.
The Day of Atonement in the Old Testament is the perfect parallel to the atonement
of Christ in the ew Testament. The former required an animal sacrifice; the latter
involved the one perfect offering of Jesus Christ. He provides a universal
redemption that is particularized only by those who put their faith in Him.
When we read Romans 14:15 and realize that the weak believer is devastated by our
exercise of liberty and our failure to love him, we are reminded that he was one for
whom Christ died. We are to build up our brother in love by not causing him to
stumble, grieve, or be devastated by falling into sin.
CALVI , “15.But if through meat thy brother is grieved, etc. He now explains how the offending
of our brethren may vitiate the use of good things. And the first thing is, — that love is violated,
when our brother is made to grieve by what is so trifling; for it is contrary to love to occasion grief to
any one. The next thing is, — that when the weak conscience is wounded, the PRICE of Christ’
blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a
heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach; and we must be basely given up to our own
lusts, if we prefer meat, a worthless thing, to Christ. (428) The third reason is, — that since the
liberty attained for us by Christ is a blessing, we ought to take care, lest it should be evil spoken of
by men and justly blamed, which is the case, when we unseasonably use God’ gifts. These reasons
then ought to influence us, lest by using our liberty, we thoughtlessly cause offenses. (429)
(428) From the words “ not,” etc., some have deduced the sentiment, that those for whom Christ
died may perish for ever. It is neither wise nor just to draw a conclusion of this kind; for it is one that
is negatived by many POSITIVE declarations of Scripture. Man’ inference, when contrary to God’
word, cannot be right. Besides, the Apostle’ object in this passage is clearly this, — to exhibit
the sin of those who disregarded without saying that it actually effected that evil. Some have very
unwisely attempted to obviate the inference above mentioned, by suggesting, that the destruction
meant was that of comfort and edification. But no doubt the Apostle meant the ruin of the soul;
hence the urgency of his exhortation, — “ not act in such a way as tends to endanger the safety of a
soul for whom Christ has shed his blood;” or, “ not,” that is, as far as you can do so. Apostles and
ministers are said to “” men; some are exhorted here not to “” them. Neither of these effects can
follow, except in the first instance, God grants his blessing, and in the second his permission; and
his permission as to his people he will never grant, as he has expressly told us. See Joh_10:27.
— Ed.
(429) “Vestrum bonum ,” ὑµῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν Some, such as [Grotius ] and [Hammond ], [Scott ],](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-125-320.jpg)
![[Chalmers ], etc., AGREE with [Calvin ], and view this “” or privilege, to be Christian liberty, or
freedom from ceremonial observances, (see 1Co_10:29;) but [Origen ], [Ambrose ], [Theodoret ],
[Mede ], etc., consider that the gospel is meant. The first opinion is the most suitable to the
passage. — Ed.
16Do not allow what you consider good to be
spoken of as evil.
BAR ES, “Let not then your good ... - That which you esteem to be right, and
which may be right in itself. You are not bound by the ceremonial law. You are free from
the yoke of bondage This freedom you esteem to be a good - a favor - a high privilege.
And so it is; but you should not make such a use of it as to do injury to others.
Be evil spoken of - Greek, Be blasphemed. Do not so use your Christian liberty as to
give occasion for railing and unkind remarks from your brethren, so as to produce
contention and strife, and thus to give rise to evil reports among the wicked about the
tendency of the Christian religion, as if it were adapted only to promote controversy.
How much strife would have been avoided if all Christians had regarded this plain rule.
In relation to dress, and rites, and ceremonies in the church, we may be conscious that
we are right; but an obstinate adherence to them may only give rise to contention and
angry discussions, and to evil reports among men, of the tendency of religion. In such a
case we should yield our private, unimportant personal indulgence to the good of the
cause of religion and of peace.
CLARKE, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of - Do not make such a use of
your Christian liberty as to subject the Gospel itself to reproach. Whatsoever you do, do it
in such a manner, spirit, and time, as to make it productive of the greatest possible good.
There are many who have such an unhappy method of doing their good acts, as not only
to do little or no good by them, but a great deal of evil. It requires much prudence and
watchfulness to find out the proper time of performing even a good action.
GILL, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of. The Vulgate Latin reads it, "our
good", and so the Syriac version; the sense is the same, and to be understood either of
the Gospel in general, which is good in its author, matter, effects, and consequences; is
good tidings of good things, and which might be blasphemed by the men of the world, on
account of the divisions and contentions among the professors of it, about such little
trivial things, as eating this or the other sort of food; and therefore care should be taken,
that it be not evil spoken of through such conduct: or else the doctrine of Christian](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-126-320.jpg)
![liberty in particular, which is a good thing; Christ has procured it, and bestows it upon
his people; it is a valuable blessing in itself, and is attended and followed with many
considerable privileges and immunities; but may be evil spoken of by those, who do not
so well understand it, through an imprudent use of it by those who do; and who therefore
should guard against any reproach that may be cast upon it; and rather than this should
be the case, forego the use of it, in things of an indifferent nature; see 1Co_10:30; so that
this is another of the apostle's reasons, why though nothing is of itself unclean, yet it
should be abstained from on account of others.
JAMISO , “Let not then your good — that is, this liberty of yours as to Jewish
meats and days, well founded though it be.
be evil spoken of — for the evil it does to others.
Our liberty in Christ and freedom from the law is good, but not if we use it to
destroy another brother in Christ - then, it could rightly be spoken of as evil
What hurts others is evil even if it is good in itself. The blessing of your freedom can
become a burden to bear if it leads others to speak of it as wrong and evil.
MACARTHUR, “First Peter 2:15 says, "So is the will of God, that with well doing
[goodness of life and character] ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men."
That means you shut the mouths of those who criticize your faith. How do you do
that? Verse 16 says, "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of
maliciousness." If you want to silence the critics by your good life, you can't abuse
your freedom, and you certainly can't use your freedom as an excuse to cover your
sin.
What does "your good" refer to? The Greek word translated "good" is agathos. It
refers to that which is qualitatively or intrinsically good. Paul has in mind our
freedom in Christ--all that salvation provides, all the goodness of enjoying
everything God has given us. When someone speaks evil about that good, it has just
been blasphemed.
We can enjoy everything God has given us. A strong Christian can give thanks for
his freedom and rejoice in it. But if he damages other people by abusing it, and the
world sees his indifference to the pain of his weaker brother, do you think they will
conclude that Christians are a marvelous group of people? ot at all. In Romans 2
Paul tells us that while the Jews were trying to show the world how righteous they
were, they destroyed the reputation of God. In verse 24 he says, "The name of God
is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you."
In 1 Corinthians 10:28-30 the apostle Paul says, "If any man say unto you, This is
offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience'
sake; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof-- conscience, I say, not
thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged by another man's
conscience? For if I, by grace, be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that which](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-127-320.jpg)
![lies in righteousness and true holiness, in which the new man is created; in truth and
uprightness in the inward parts, where the laws of God are put and written; and in peace
of conscience, arising from the blood and righteousness of Christ; and in that spiritual
joy and comfort the Holy Ghost produces, by leading to a sight of Christ, and an interest
in him and his atonement. The Gospel, which gives an account both of the kingdom of
grace and of glory, reveals the righteousness of Christ, and teaches men to live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present evil world: it is a publication of peace by the blood
of Christ; it calls men to peace, to cultivate peace one among another, and to seek those
things which make for it; and when it comes in power, is attended with joy in the Holy
Ghost, and is the means of increasing it; and this is another reason, persuading to
Christian forbearance, in the use of things indifferent.
HE RY, “Because the stress of Christianity is not to be laid upon these things, nor are
they at all essential to religion, either on the one side or on the other. This is his reason
(Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18), which is reducible to this branch of exhortation. Why should
you spend your zeal either for or against those things which are so minute and
inconsiderable in religion? Some make it a reason why, in case of offence likely to be
taken, we should refrain the use of our Christian liberty; but it seems directed in general
against that heat about those things which he observed on both sides. The kingdom of
God is not meat, etc. Observe here,
[1.] The nature of true Christianity, what it is: it is here called, The kingdom of God; it
is a religion intended to rule us, a kingdom: it stands in a true and hearty subjection to
God's power and dominion. The gospel dispensation is in a special manner called the
kingdom of God, in distinction from the legal dispensation, Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17. First, It
is not meat and drink: it does not consist either in using or in abstaining from such and
such meats and drinks. Christianity gives no rule in that case, either in one way or
another. The Jewish religion consisted much in meats and drinks (Heb_9:10), abstaining
from some meats religiously (Lev_11:2), eating other meats religiously, as in several of
the sacrifices, part of which were to be eaten before the Lord: but all those appointments
are now abolished and are no more, Col_2:21, Col_2:22. The matter is left at large. Every
creature of God is good, 1Ti_4:4. So, as to other things, it is neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision (Gal_5:6; Gal_6:15; 1Co_7:19), it is not being of this party and
persuasion, of this or the other opinion in minor things, that will recommend us to God.
It will not be asked at the great day, “Who ate flesh, and who ate herbs?” “Who kept holy
days, and who did not?” Nor will it be asked, “Who was conformist and who was non-
conformist?” But it will be asked, “Who feared God and worked righteousness, and who
did not?” Nothing more destructive to true Christianity than placing it in modes, and
forms, and circumstantials, which eat out the essentials. Secondly, It is righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. These are some of the essentials of Christianity,
things in which all the people of God are agreed, in the pursuit of which we must spend
our zeal, and which we must mind with an excelling care. Righteousness, peace, and joy,
are very comprehensive words; and each of them includes much, both of the foundation
and the superstructure of religion. Might I limit the sense of them, it should be thus: - As
to God, our great concern is righteousness - to appear before him justified by the merit of
Christ's death, sanctified by the Spirit of his grace; for the righteous Lord loveth
righteousness. As to our brethren, it is peace - to live in peace and love, and charity with
them, following peace with all men: Christ came into the world to be the great peace-
maker. As to ourselves, it is joy in the Holy Ghost - that spiritual joy which is wrought by
the blessed Spirit in the hearts of believers, which respects God as their reconciled Father
and heaven as their expected home. Next to our compliance with God, the life of religion](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-138-320.jpg)
![consists in our complacency in him; to delight ourselves always in the Lord. Surely we
serve a good Master, who makes peace and joy so essential to our religion. Then and then
only we may expect peace and joy in the Holy Ghost when the foundation is laid in
righteousness, Isa_32:17. Thirdly, It is in these things to serve Christ (Rom_14:18), to
do all this out of respect to Christ himself as our Master, to his will as our rule and to his
glory as our end. That which puts an acceptableness upon all our good duties is a regard
to Christ in the doing of them. We are to serve his interests and designs in the world,
which are in the first place to reconcile us one to another. What is Christianity but the
serving of Christ? And we may well afford to serve him who for us and for our salvation
took upon him the form of a servant.
[2.] The advantages of it. He that duly observeth these things, First, Is acceptable to
God. God is well pleased with such a one, though he be not in every thing just of our
length. He has the love and favour of God; his person, his performances, are accepted of
God, and we need no more to make us happy. If God now accepts thy works, thou mayest
eat thy bread with joy. Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him;
and they are those that abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Secondly, He is
approved of men - of all wise and good men, and the opinion of others is not to be
regarded. The persons and things which are acceptable to God should be approved of us.
Should not we be pleased with that which God is pleased with? What is it to be sanctified,
but to be of God's mind? Observe, The approbation of men is not to be slighted; for we
must provide things honest in the sight of all men, and study those things that are lovely
and of good report: but the acceptance of God is to be desired and aimed at in the first
place, because, sooner or later, God will bring all the world to be of his mind.
3. Another rule here given is this, that in these doubtful things every one not only may,
but must, walk according to the light that God hath given him. This is laid down
Rom_14:5, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; that is, “Practise
according to your own judgment in these things, and leave others to do so too. Do not
censure the practice of others; let them enjoy their own opinion; if they be persuaded in
their own mind that they ought to do so and so, do not condemn them, but, if your sober
sentiments be otherwise, do not make their practice a rule to you, any more than you
must prescribe yours as a rule to them. Take heed of acting contrary to the dictates of a
doubting conscience. First be persuaded that what you do is lawful, before you venture to
do it.” In doubtful things, it is good keeping on the sure side of the hedge. If a weak
Christian doubts whether it be lawful to eat flesh, while he remains under that doubt he
had best forbear, till he be fully persuaded in his own mind. We must not pin our faith
upon any one's sleeve, nor make the practice of others our rule; but follow the dictates of
our own understanding. To this purport he argues, Rom_14:14 and Rom_14:23, which
two verses explain this, and give us a rule not to act against the dictates,
(1.) Of a mistaken conscience, Rom_14:14. If a thing be indifferent, so that it is not in
itself a sin not to do it, if we really think it a sin to do it it is to us a sin, though not to
others, because we act against our consciences, though mistaken and misinformed. He
specifies the case in hand, concerning the difference of meats. Observe,
[1.] His own clearness in this matter. “I know and am persuaded - I am fully
persuaded, I am acquainted with my Christian liberty, and am satisfied in it, without any
doubt or scruple, that there is nothing unclean of itself, that is, no kind of meat that lies
under any ceremonial uncleanness, nor is forbidden to be eaten, if it be food proper for
human bodies.” Several kinds of meat were forbidden to the Jews, that in that, as in
other things, they might be a peculiar and separate people, Lev_11:44; Deu_14:2,
Deu_14:3. Sin had brought a curse upon the whole creation: Cursed is the ground for
thy sake; the use of the creatures and dominion over them were forfeited, so that to man](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-139-320.jpg)
![they were all unclean (Tit_1:15), in token of which God in the ceremonial law prohibited
the use of some, to show what he might have done concerning all; but now that Christ
has removed the curse the matter is set at large again, and that prohibition is taken away.
Therefore Paul says that he was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, not only as the author of
that persuasion, but as the ground of it; it was built upon the efficacy of Christ's death,
which removed the curse, took off the forfeiture, and restored our right to the creature in
general, and consequently put a period to that particular distinguishing prohibition. So
that now there is nothing unclean of itself, every creature of God is good; nothing
common: so the margin, ouden koinon; nothing which is common to others to eat, from
the use of which the professors of religion are restrained: nothing profane; in this sense
the Jews used the word common. It is explained by the word akatharton, Act_10:14,
nothing common or unclean. It was not only from the revelation made to Peter in this
matter, but from the tenour and tendency of the whole gospel, and from the manifest
design of Christ's death in general, that Paul learned to count nothing common or
unclean. This was Paul's own clearness, and he practised accordingly.
[2.] But here is a caution he gives to those who had not that clearness in this matter
which he had: To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, though it be his error, yet
to him it is unclean. This particular case, thus determined, gives a general rule, That he
who does a thing which he verily believes to be unlawful, however the thing be in itself,
to him it is a sin. This arises from that unchangeable law of our creation, which is, that
our wills, in all their choices, motions, and directions, should follow the dictates of our
understandings. This is the order of nature, which order is broken if the understanding
(though misguided) tell us that such a thing is a sin, and yet we will do it. This is a will to
do evil; for, if it appears to us to be sin, there is the same pravity and corruption of the
will in the doing of it as if really it were a sin; and therefore we ought not to do it. Not
that it is in the power of any man's conscience to alter the nature of the action in itself,
but only as to himself. It must be understood likewise with this proviso, though men's
judgments and opinions may make that which is good in itself to become evil to them,
yet they cannot make that which is evil in itself to become good, either in itself or to
them. If a man were verily persuaded (it is Dr. Sanderson's instance, sermon on
Rom_14:23) that it were evil to ask his father's blessing, that mispersuasion would make
it become evil to him: but, if he should be as verily persuaded that it were good to curse
his father, this would not make it become good. The Pharisees taught people to plead
conscience, when they made corban an excuse for denying relief to their parents,
Mat_15:5, Mat_15:6. But this would not serve any more than Paul's erroneous
conscience would justify his rage against Christianity (Act_26:9), or theirs, Joh_16:2.
(2.) Nor must we act against the dictates of a doubting conscience. In those indifferent
things which we are sure it is no sin not to do, and yet are not clear that it is lawful to do
them, we must not do them while we continue under those doubts; for he that doubteth
is damned if he eat (Rom_14:23), that is, it turns into sin to him; he is damned,
katakekritai - he is condemned of his own conscience, because he eateth not of faith,
because he does that which he is not fully persuaded he may lawfully do. He is not clear
that it is lawful for him to eat swine's flesh (suppose), and yet is drawn, notwithstanding
his doubts, to eat it, because he sees others do it, because he would gratify his appetite
with it, or because he would not be reproached for his singularity. Here his own heart
cannot but condemn him as a transgressor. our rule is, to walk as far as we have attained,
not further, Phi_3:15, Phi_3:16. - For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Taking it in
general, it is the same with that of the apostle (Heb_11:6), Without faith it is impossible
to please God. Whatever we do in religion, it will not turn to any good account, except we](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-140-320.jpg)
![the Church. He uses similar arguments in his first Epistle to the Corinthians:
“” he says, “ the stomach, and the stomach for meat; but God will destroy both,” (1Co_6:13 :)
again,
“ we eat, we shall not abound,” (1Co_8:8.)
By these words he meant briefly to show, that meat and drink were things too worthless, that on
their ACCOUNT the course of the gospel should be impeded.
But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink; not
for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of showing,
that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words a
summary of what it is; namely, that we, being well assured, have peace with God, and possess real
joy of heart through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But as I have said, these few things he has
accommodated to his present SUBJECT . He indeed who is become partaker of true
righteousness, enjoys a great and an invaluable good, even a calm joy of conscience; and he who
haspeace with God, what can he desire more? (430)
By CONNECTING peace and joy together, he seems to me to express the character of this joy;
for however torpid the reprobate may be, or however they may elevate themselves, yet the
conscience is not rendered calm and joyful, except when it feels God to be pacified and propitious
to it; and there is no solid joy but what proceeds from this peace. And though it was necessary,
when mention was made of these things, that the Spirit should have been declared as the author;
yet he meant in this place indirectly to oppose the Spirit to external things, that we might know, that
the things which belong to the kingdom of God CONTINUE complete to us without the use of
meats.
(430) What is here said is no doubt true of the kingdom of God; but by considering what is
afterwards said in the two following verses, we cannot well accede to this exposition.
Righteousness, peace, and joy, mentioned here, are things acceptable to God and approved by
men: they must then be things apparent and visible, which men see and observe; and to follow “
things of peace,” refers to the conduct. “” then must mean here the doing of what is right and just
towards one another; “” concord and unanimity, as opposed to discord and contentions; “” the fruit
of this peaceable state, a cheering delight, a mutual rejoicing, instead of the sorrow and grief
occasioned by discord; and these come “ the Holy Spirit” and are produced by him; and they are not
the semblances of such virtues and graces, presented in some instances by false religions.
See Gal_5:22. [Doddridge ], [Stuart ], and [Chalmers ] have viewed the passage in this light, though
the latter, as well as [Scott ], seemed inclined to combine the two views: but this is to mix up things
together unnecessarily, and to destroy the harmony of the context. — Ed.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.
God’s kingdom
I. The description given of the kingdom of God.
1. The import of the term. Christ’s spiritual kingdom established on earth—His
dominion over His redeemed people, having its seat in the soul, and extending over
the entire life. This is a kingdom totally diverse from all others—one not in word or](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-146-320.jpg)
![By these words he meant briefly to show, that meat and drink were things too worthless, that on
their ACCOUNT the course of the gospel should be impeded.
But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink; not
for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of showing,
that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words a
summary of what it is; namely, that we, being well assured, have peace with God, and possess real
joy of heart through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But as I have said, these few things he has
accommodated to his present SUBJECT . He indeed who is become partaker of true
righteousness, enjoys a great and an invaluable good, even a calm joy of conscience; and he who
haspeace with God, what can he desire more? (430)
By CONNECTING peace and joy together, he seems to me to express the character of this joy;
for however torpid the reprobate may be, or however they may elevate themselves, yet the
conscience is not rendered calm and joyful, except when it feels God to be pacified and propitious
to it; and there is no solid joy but what proceeds from this peace. And though it was necessary,
when mention was made of these things, that the Spirit should have been declared as the author;
yet he meant in this place indirectly to oppose the Spirit to external things, that we might know, that
the things which belong to the kingdom of God CONTINUE complete to us without the use of
meats.
(430) What is here said is no doubt true of the kingdom of God; but by considering what is
afterwards said in the two following verses, we cannot well accede to this exposition.
Righteousness, peace, and joy, mentioned here, are things acceptable to God and approved by
men: they must then be things apparent and visible, which men see and observe; and to follow “
things of peace,” refers to the conduct. “” then must mean here the doing of what is right and just
towards one another; “” concord and unanimity, as opposed to discord and contentions; “” the fruit
of this peaceable state, a cheering delight, a mutual rejoicing, instead of the sorrow and grief
occasioned by discord; and these come “ the Holy Spirit” and are produced by him; and they are not
the semblances of such virtues and graces, presented in some instances by false religions.
See Gal_5:22. [Doddridge ], [Stuart ], and [Chalmers ] have viewed the passage in this light, though
the latter, as well as [Scott ], seemed inclined to combine the two views: but this is to mix up things
together unnecessarily, and to destroy the harmony of the context. — Ed.
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what
leads to peace and to mutual edification.
BAR ES, “Let us therefore follow ... - The object of this verse is to persuade the
church at Rome to lay aside their causes of contention, and to live in harmony. This
exhortation is founded on the considerations which the apostle had presented, and may](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-161-320.jpg)
![which means to undo, to loosen, to pull down; and as “” follows, which, as [Calvin ] and others think,
is to be understood of God’ building, the work of edifying or building up his people, the verb may in
this sense be rendered here, “ not down the work of God.” But here, as inRom_14:15, it is
the tendency of the deed that is to be considered, and the effect as far as man’ doing was
concerned. The Apostle says nothing of what God would do. — Ed.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for
peace.
Things which make for peace
I. What these things are.
1. Righteousness.
2. Humility.
3. Love.
4. Faith.
II. We must follow them.
1. Earnestly.
2. Prayerfully.
3. With steady faith in our ultimate attainment of them.
III. The result. Eternal life in heaven with God and Christ. (J. H. Tarson.)
The things which make for peace
1. A peaceable temper.
2. Peaceable measures.
3. Peaceable methods.
Things to be sought after
I. Things which make for peace.
1. Essentials in which we all agree.
2. Objects which we all desire.
3. Blessings in which all can share.
II. Things that edify.
1. Knowledge.
2. Faith.
3. Love. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
The endeavours of the true Christian for the welfare of his brethren
I. Wherein they consist. Endeavours after—](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-167-320.jpg)
![which Christ prays for that it fail not, and is both the author and finisher of; but the work
of peace and edification in particular persons, and in a church, may be destroyed, but it
is pity it should, by so small a matter, so trivial a thing as meat, or the use of anything
that is indifferent:
all things indeed are pure. The Ethiopic version adds, "to the pure"; to them that
have pure consciences, sprinkled by the blood of Christ, and have no doubt or scruple
about eating things indifferent; but this addition seems to be taken out of Tit_1:15;
though it may serve to explain the sense, which is, that all sorts of food, without any
distinction, may be eaten; there is nothing common or unclean, every creature in itself is
good, and every Christian may lawfully eat thereof, with moderation and thankfulness.
This is a concession which stands thus corrected and restrained,
but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. The Arabic version adds, "of
his neighbour"; which is a good interpretation of the passage; for the apostle means not
with offence to a man's own conscience, though so to eat is an evil too, but with offence
to a fellow Christian; it is not an evil in itself to eat, but when this circumstance of
offending another thereby attends it; it is evil, though not in itself, yet in its
consequences; it offends a weak brother, displeases Christ, who would not have one of
his little ones offended, and brings a woe upon the person by whom the offence comes.
The Ethiopic version reads, "who eats inordinately"; which to be sure is sinful, but is not
the meaning here.
HE RY, “ Consider the work of God (Rom_14:20): “For meat destroy not the work of
God - the work of grace, particularly the work of faith in thy brother's soul.” The works of
peace and comfort are destroyed by such an offence given; take heed of it therefore; do
not undo that which God hath done. You should work together with God, do not
countermine his work. First, The work of grace and peace is the work of God; it is
wrought by him, it is wrought for him; it is a good work of his beginning, Phi_1:6.
Observe, The same for whom Christ died (Rom_14:15) are here called the work of God;
besides the work that is wrought for us there is a work to be wrought in us, in order to
our salvation. Every saint is God's workmanship, his husbandry, his building, Eph_2:10;
1Co_3:9. Secondly, We must be very careful to do nothing which tends to the destruction
of this work, either in ourselves or others. We must deny ourselves in our appetites,
inclinations, and in the use of Christian liberty, rather than obstruct and prejudice our
own or others' grace and peace. Many do for meat and drink destroy the work of God in
themselves (nothing more destructive to eh soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh,
and fulfilling the lusts of it), so likewise in others, by wilful offence given. Think what
thou destroyest - the work of God, whose work is honourable and glorious; think for
what thou destroyest it - for meat, which was but for the belly, and the belly for it.
[4.] Consider the evil of giving offence, and what an abuse it is of our Christian liberty.
He grants that all things indeed are pure. We may lawfully eat flesh, even those meats
which were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but, if we abuse this liberty, it turns into
sin to us: It is evil to him that eats with offence. Lawful things may be done unlawfully. -
Eats with offence, either carelessly or designedly giving offence to his brethren. It is
observable that the apostle directs his reproof most against those who gave the offence;
not as if those were not to be blamed who causelessly and weakly took the offence from
their ignorance of Christian liberty, and the want of that charity which is not easily
provoked and which thinketh no evil (he several times tacitly reflects upon them), but he](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-170-320.jpg)
![superfluous. (434)
(434) The version of [Calvin ] is, “Beatus qui non judicat seipsum in eo quod examinat ,” µακάριος ὅ
µὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐν ᾦ δοκιµάζει the latter part is rendered by [Beza ], and [Piscator ], “in eo quod
approbat — in that which he approves;” by [Doddridge ], “ the thing which he alloweth;” by
[Macknight ], “ what he approveth.” The reference is no doubt to the strong, who had “” who
believed all meats lawful. The verb means to try, to examine, as well as to approve; but the latter
seems to be its meaning here. To approve and to have faith appears in this case to be the same:
then to have faith and not to abuse it by giving offense to a brother was to be a happy man, who did
not condemn himself. The meaning then most suitable to the passage is this, “ the man! who
condemns not himself by what he approves,” that is, by eating meat to the annoyance and
stumbling of the weak. — Ed.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. .
Duties in regard to things indifferent
Some things are unlawful in their own nature, and can never be right. Others are wrong
because forbidden, and only as long as the prohibition continues, and only to the parties
concerned. Others are wrong on the ground of expediency, and therefore are sometimes
wrong and sometimes right. It is not always easy to discriminate these classes.
I. There are, however, certain criteria by which we can distinguish the naturally wrong
from the naturally indifferent.
1. One of these is to be found in our moral constitution. We can see intuitively that
malice, envy, pride, etc., are in their nature wrong. They are evil, not because they are
forbidden, nor because of their injurious tendency, but they are essentially evil.
2. The Scriptures condemn such things as are in their nature evil, not for one people,
nor for a limited period, but for all men always.
II. For things indifferent in their nature the scriptures lay down the following rules.
1. If prohibited for any special reason, they are unlawful while that prohibition lasts.
2. When the prohibition is removed, they are right or wrong according to
circumstances.
(1) They are wrong when their use or enjoyment would do harm to others.
(2) They are right when no such evil is to be apprehended.
(3) That principle is never to be sacrificed to expediency, i.e., when doing or not
doing anything would imply the denial of an important truth. All these principles
are illustrated by the apostle’s conduct and teaching. These were circumcision,
observance of Jewish holy days, and eating meats prohibited by the Mosaic law,
or which had been offered to idols. Paul taught—
(a) That there was no harm in doing or neglecting them. If a man chose to
circumcise his son, or to keep a holy day, or to abstain from certain meats, he
was free to do so.
(b) That he must not make his judgment a rule of duty to others. He must not
condemn those who thought or acted differently (Rom_14:4).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-183-320.jpg)
![II. Some practical reflections.
1. How aggravated the guilt of presumptuous sin.
2. We should show a tender regard for others that we do not lead them into sin.
3. In all doubtful cases it is best to keep on the safe side. (J. Lyth, D.D.).
HAWKER, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that
condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. (23) And he that doubteth is
damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
I only detain the Reader at the last clause of this Chapter, to observe, in what a tone of
the most solemn decision, the Lord declares by his servant, that whatsoever is not of
faith is sin. We have a strong expression elsewhere, of the importance of faith, in the
sight of God, when it is said, that without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb_11:6.
But here, the want of it is said to be sin. And what becomes of the multitude of services,
alms-givings, charities, and benevolent institutions, unfounded in faith? According to
this Scripture, it is not enough to say, they have no claims to divine favor; but they are
exposed to divine wrath. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, According to this
statement, (and let it be remembered it is scriptural,) there can be nothing to escape the
Lord’s displeasure, however specious it may appear to men, but what is undertaken with
an eye to God in Christ. Every act of the creature, as the act of a sinful creature, must
partake of sin. And, it is by faith only in Christ, that the iniquity of our most holy things
are done away, Exo_28:38. But, if there be no respect to Christ in any act and faith of
acceptance in Him, it is sin: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Perhaps it may be said,
that upon this statement, all the high sounding deeds of thousands, which have filled the
world with their praises, and their monuments, will come to nothing. No doubt they will.
But it is not enough, according to this Scripture, merely to say, that they will come to
nothing; for if they be found unfounded in Christ, they will be proved to be sin. And what
a reverse of circumstances will take place at the great day of decision: while many who
have given almost their body to be burned on the score of charity, but without faith in
Christ, will be found in their very alms-deed in sin; many who have given nothing
because they have had nothing to give, but the prayer of faith; will be then
acknowledged, as the poor woman was by Christ when on earth, to have given a costly
offering. Reader! may you and I have grace, to form a right estimate in all things.
Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
If you have [strong] faith, and feel liberty to partake of certain things, praise God!
But have your strong faith before God, not before a brother who will stumble. There
are things that you need to do in private if they offend a brother. He does not need
to know what you do behind closed doors. If you do not offend another it is okey to
practice your liberty Paul is saying to the strong Christian. It is public behavior that
need to be regulated.
If he does not feel condemned by his own conscience he can be happy to practice
what he pleases and eat his meat that was offered to idols. Ironside, “If one has
faith that he can safely do what another condemns, let him have it to himself before
God and not flaunt it flagrantly before the weak.” Calvin, “The man, therefore,
who discriminates in what he does is happy, so long as he is not stung by an accusing](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-189-320.jpg)
![Christian liberty, love, and confidence!
Gary Vanderet
Whatever you believe about these neutral issues is between you and God, says Paul.
Keep it that way. Whether you are "strong" and feel free to do a lot of things, or
whether you are "weak" and feel that you can't, keep it a secret. You don't have to put
your views on display or force them upon others.
ii. In terms of behavior, Paul concludes with a word to both groups. John
Stott puts it this way: "To the 'strong' Christian, he writes: 'Happy is he
who does not condemn himself in what he approves.' The 'strong' Christian
is blessed because his conscience approves of his eating everything, and he
can follow his conscience without guilt. To the 'weak' Christian, he writes:
'But he who doubts [he who is plagued by misgivings because his
conscience keeps giving him vacillating signals] is condemned if he eats,
[probably by his conscience, not by God] because his eating is not from
faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.'"[4] Here Paul seems to elevate
the significance of our conscience. Though conscience certainly is not an
infallible guide, and we ought to educate it, we ought not go against it.
Let me conclude with a story that Ray Stedman shared about Dr. Harry Ironside,
which illustrates the apostle's point:
At a church picnic, Dr. Ironside met a man who had been converted from the
Moslem faith. While they were talking, a girl brought a basket of sandwiches
up to this man and asked if would like one. He said, "What kind do you have?"
"Oh," she said, "I'm afraid all we have left are ham and pork." He said,
"Don't you have any beef?" She replied, " o, they are all gone." "Well," he
said, " o thank you. I don't eat ham or pork." The girl responded, knowing he
was a Christian, "I am really surprised. Don't you know that now you are freed
from those food restrictions and you can eat whatever you want?" He said,
"Yes, I know that. I know I am free to eat pork, but I am also free not to eat it.
I'm still involved with my family back in the ear East, and I know that when I
go home once a year, and I come up to my father's door, the first question he
will ask me is, 'Have those infidels taught you to eat the filthy hog meat yet?' If
I have to say to him, 'Yes, father,' I will be banished from that home, and have
no further witness in it. But if I can say, as I have always been able to say, ' o,
father, no pork has ever passed my lips,' then I have admittance to the family
circle and I am free to tell them the joy I have found in Jesus Christ. Therefore
I am free to eat, or I am free not to eat, as the case may be."[5]
We are just as free to say to no as we are to say yes when it comes to choosing whether
to exercise our liberty. That is true freedom. If you cannot limit your liberty for the
sake of building up others, then you may not be as free as you think. True freedom is
the power to give up your rights for the sake of others. That is the kind of freedom the
watching world needs to see.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-197-320.jpg)
![CALVI , “23.But he who is undecided, etc. He very fitly expresses in one word the character of
that mind which vacillates and is uncertain as to what ought to be done; for he who is undecided
undergoes alternate changes, and in the midst of his various deliberations is held suspended by
uncertainty. As then the main thing in a good work is the persuasion of a mind conscious of being
right before God, and as it were a calm assurance, nothing is more opposed to the acceptance of
our works than vacillation. (435) And, oh! that this truth were fixed in the minds of men, that nothing
ought to be attempted except what the mind feels assured is acceptable to God, men would not
then make such an uproar, as they often do now, nor waver, nor blindly hurry onward wherever their
own imagination may lead them. For if our way of living is to be confined to this moderation, that no
one is to touch a morsel of meat with a doubting conscience, how much greater caution is to be
exercised in the greatest things?
And whatever is not from faith, etc. The reason for this condemnation is, that every work, however
splendid and excellent in appearance, is counted as sin, except it BE FOUNDED on a right
conscience; for God regards not the outward display, but the inward obedience of the heart, by this
alone is an estimate made of our works. Besides, how can that be obedience, when any one
undertakes what he is not persuaded is approved by God? Where then such a doubt exists, the
individual is justly charged with prevarication; for he proceeds in opposition to the testimony of his,
own conscience.
The wordfaith is to be taken here for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or, so to speak, for a firm
assurance, and not that of any kind, but what is derived from the truth of God. Hence doubt or
uncertainty vitiates all our actions, however specious they may otherwise be. Now, since a pious
mind can never acquiesce with certainty in anything but the word of God, all fictitious modes of
worship do in this case vanish away, and whatever works there may be which originate in the brains
of men; for while everything which is not from faith is condemned, rejected is whatever is not
supported and approved by God’ word. It is at the same time by no means sufficient that what we
do is approved by the word of God, except the mind, relying on this persuasion, prepares itself
cheerfully to do its work. Hence the first thing in a right conduct, in order that our minds may at no
time fluctuate, is this, that we, depending on God’ word, confidently PROCEED wherever it may
call us.
(435) The Greek is ὁ διακρινόµενος “ who discerns,” that is, a difference as to meats; so
[Doddridge ], [Macknight ], and [Chalmers ] regard its meaning. [Beza ] has “qui dubitat — who
doubts,” and so our version. The word used by [Calvin ] is dijudicat , which properly means to judge
between things, to discern, but ACCORDING to his explanation it means to judge in two ways, to
be undecided.
The verb no doubt admits of these two meanings; it is used evidently in the sense of making or
putting a difference, but only, as some say, in the active voice. There are indeed two places where it
seems to have this meaning in its passive or middle form, Jas_2:4, and Jud_1:22. But as Paul has
before used it in this Epistle, Rom_4:20, in the sense of hesitating, staggering, or doubting, we may
reasonably suppose that it has this meaning here, and especially as in every place where he
expresses the other idea, he has EMPLOYED the active form. See 1Co_4:7;1Co_11:29; etc.
— Ed.
Footnotes:
Romans 14:11 Isaiah 45:23
Romans 14:14 Or that nothing](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/romans14commentary-150427093130-conversion-gate02/85/Romans-14-commentary-198-320.jpg)
Uploaded byGLENN PEASE
Romans 14 commentary
This document discusses divisions that can arise in the church over issues where Christians hold differing views. It notes that Christians often find themselves on both sides of controversial issues due to differences in background, tradition, and perspective. The passage examines Romans 14, in which Paul addresses how the church should handle areas where God's will is not absolutely clear, and Christians have differing convictions. He advocates receiving one another without passing harsh judgment on disputable matters, in order to promote unity.
More Related Content
Similar to Romans 14 commentary
More from GLENN PEASE
Romans 14 commentary
- 1. ROMA S 14COMME 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
- 2. camp. The conservativesbelieve 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
- 3. backgrounds b. Their levelof 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
- 4. was reduced tosome 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
- 5. a man inrelation 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,
- 6. "what is themeaning 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
- 7. been Jews weretrained 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
- 8. press the matterurgently 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
- 9. the Old Testamentritual 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
- 10. church. If hedoesn'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
- 11. The strong aretempted 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.
- 12. To Him ourweakness 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
- 13. Christ. ewell rebukescertain 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
- 14. in that hisconscience 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.
- 15. "Let me useanother 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
- 16. that we arenot 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
- 17. commentary on Romanshas 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.
- 18. (3) the lawsobserved 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
- 19. redeeming work; whilehe 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
- 20. must be mutualforbearance 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.)
- 21. Religious toleration The argumentfor 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.)
- 22. Unity to bemaintained 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
- 23. attractive, and thatthe “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
- 24. (Psa_119:130); the dooris 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
- 25. theology; but woebe 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
- 26. 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,
- 27. if not withothers. 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
- 28. others, and tolove, 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
- 29. surrender under hisrights. 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
- 30. have assuredly here. Hewho 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"
- 31. 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
- 32. drink; I don’tlike the worry of these scruples; they interrupt me, they annoy me." Unhappy man! It is better to be the slave of scruples than of self. In order to allow yourself another dish-you would slight an anxious friend’s conscience, and, so far as your conduct is concerned, push him to a violation of it. But that means, a push on the slope which leans towards spiritual ruin. The way to perdition is paved with violated consciences. The Lord may counteract your action, and save your injured brother from himself-and you. But your action is, none the less, calculated for his perdition. And all the while this soul, for which, in comparison with your dull and narrow "liberty"; you care so little, was so much cared for by the Lord that He-died for it. Oh, consecrating thought, attached now, forever, for the Christian, to every human soul which he can influence: "For whom Christ died!" Do not therefore let your good, your glorious creed of holy liberty in Christ, be railed at, as only a thinly-veiled self-indulgence after all; for the kingdom of our God is not feeding and drinking; He does not claim a throne in your soul, and in your Society, merely to enlarge your bill of fare, to make it your sacred privilege, as an end in itself, to take what you please at table; but righteousness, surely here, in the Roman Epistle, the "righteousness" of our divine acceptance, and peace, the peace of perfect relations with Him in Christ, and joy in the Holy Spirit, the pure strong gladness of the justified, as in their sanctuary of salvation they drink the "living water," and "rejoice always in the Lord." For he who in this way lives as bondservant to Christ, spending his spiritual talents not for himself, but for his Master, is pleasing to his God, and is genuine to his fellow men. Yes, he stands the test of their keen scrutiny. They can soon detect the counterfeit under spiritual assertions which really assert self. But their conscience affirms the genuineness of a life of unselfish and happy holiness; that life "reverbs no hollowness." Accordingly, therefore, let us pursue the interests of peace, and the interests of an edification which is mutual; the "building up" which looks beyond the man to his brother, to his brethren, and tempers by that look even his plans for his own spiritual life. Again he returns to the sorrowful grotesque of preferring personal comforts, and even the assertion of the principle of personal liberty, to the good of others. Do not for food’s sake be undoing the work of our God. "All things are pure"; he doubtless quotes a watchword often heard; and it was truth itself in the abstract, but capable of becoming a fatal fallacy in practice; but anything is bad to the man who is brought by a stumbling block to eat it. Yes, this is bad. What is good in contrast? Good it is not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine (a word for our time and its conditions), and not to do anything in which your brother is stumbled, or entrapped, or weakened. Yes, this is Christian liberty; a liberation from the strong and subtle law of self; a freedom to live for others, independent of their evil, but the servant of their souls. You-the faith you have, have it by yourself, in the presence of your God. You have believed; you are therefore in Christ; in Christ you are therefore free, by faith, from the preparatory restrictions of the past. Yes; but all this is not given you for personal display, but for divine communion. Its right issue is in a holy intimacy with your God, as in the confidence of your acceptance you know Him as your Father, "nothing between." But as regards human intercourse, you are emancipated not that you may disturb the neighbours with shouts of freedom and acts of license, but that you may be at leisure to serve them in love. Happy the man who does not judge himself, who does not, in effect, decide against his own soul, in that which he approves, δοκιµάζει, pronounces
- 33. satisfactory to conscience.Unhappy he who says to himself, "This is lawful," when the verdict is all the while purchased by self-love, or otherwise by the feat: of man, and the soul knows in its depths that the thing is not as it should be. And the man who is doubtful, whose conscience is not really satisfied between the right and wrong of the matter, if he does eat, stands condemned, in the court of his own heart, and of his aggrieved Lord’s opinion, because it was not the result of faith; the action had not, for its basis, the holy conviction of the liberty of the justified. Now anything which is not the result of faith, is sin; that is to say, manifestly, "anything" in such a case as this; any indulgence, any obedience to example, which the man, in a state of inward ambiguity, decides for on a principle other than that of his union with Christ by faith. Thus the Apostle of Justification, and of the Holy Spirit, is the Apostle of Conscience too. He is as urgent upon the awful sacredness of our sense of right and wrong, as upon the offer and the security, in Christ, of peace with God, and the holy Indwelling, and the hope of glory. Let our steps reverently follow his, as we walk with God, and with men. Let us "rejoice in Christ Jesus," with a "joy" which is "in the Holy Ghost." Let us reverence duty, let us reverence conscience, in our own life, and also in the lives around us. HAWKER, “Romans 14:1-3 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. (2) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. (3) Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. We shall derive great improvement from what is here said, with an eye to the spirit of accommodation, in things of small moment between Jew and Gentile, if we take occasion therefrom, to make use of the same kind of reasoning, in the circumstances which concern the weaker and humbler Christian. There are great diversities of gifts, the Apostle saith, in the Church; but it is the same Spirit, who divideth to every man severally as he will, 1Co_12:11. And there cannot be a more beautiful or engaging character in life, whether minister, or people, than the man who kindly and affectionately accommodates himself to the several situations of those in the Church, with whom he hath to do. For it is a point, which should never be lost sight of, that all the souls of the redeemed are equally dear to Christ. And, what is equally dear to Him, should be also equally dear to everyone of his members. To bear with their infirmities, to watch over their weaknesses, to be gentle and forbearing, and in every department, to manifest the Spirit of Christ, while professing to be under the influence of Christ, is a blessed testimony of belonging to Christ; or, as Scripture beautifully expresses it: strengthening the weak hands, and confirming the feeble knees, Isa_35:4.
- 34. 2One man's faithallows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. BAR ES, “For one believeth - This was the case with the Gentiles in general, who had none of the scruples of the Jew about the propriety of eating certain kinds of meat. Many of the converts who had been Jews might also have had the same view as the apostle Paul evidently had while the great mass of Jewish converts might have cherished these scruples. May eat all things - That is, he will not be restrained by any scruples about the lawfulness of certain meats, etc. Another who is weak - There is reference here, doubt less, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was “weak,” that is, not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question with the Jew doubtless was, whether it was lawful to eat the meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices a part only of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshippers, or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his Law; Exo_34:15. This question the apostle discussed and settled in 1Co_10:20-32, which see. In that place the general principle is laid down, that it was lawful to partake of that meat as a man would of any other, “unless it was expressly pointed out to him as having been sacrificed to idols, and unless his partaking of it would be considered as countenancing the idolators in their worship;” Rom_14:28. But with this principle many Jewish converts might not have been acquainted; or what is quite as probable, they might not have been disposed to admit its propriety. Eateth herbs - Herbs or “vegetables” only; does not partake of meat at all, for “fear” of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even “ignorantly,” they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on the subject might have arisen in part from the fact that sins of “ignorance” among them subjected them to certain penalties; Lev_4:2-3, etc.; Lev_5:15; Num_15:24, Num_15:27-29. Josephus says (Life, Section 3) that in his time there were certain priests of his acquaintance who “supported themselves with figs and nuts.” These priests had been sent to Rome to be tried on some charge before Caesar: and it is probable that they abstained from meat because it might have been offered to idols. It is expressly declared of Daniel when in Babylon, that he lived on pulse and water, that he might not “defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank;” Dan_1:8-16. CLARKE, “One believeth that he may eat all things - He believes that whatsoever
- 35. is wholesome andnourishing, whether herbs or flesh - whether enjoined or forbidden by the Mosaic law - may be safely and conscientiously used by every Christian. Another, who is weak, eateth herbs - Certain Jews, lately converted to the Christian faith, and having as yet little knowledge of its doctrines, believe the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats to be still in force; and therefore, when they are in a Gentile country, for fear of being defiled, avoid flesh entirely and live on vegetables. And a Jew when in a heathen country acts thus, because he cannot tell whether the flesh which is sold in the market may be of a clean or unclean beast; whether it may not have been offered to an idol; or whether the blood may have been taken properly from it. GILL, “For one believeth that he may eat all things,.... He is fully persuaded in his mind, that there is nothing in itself common, or unclean; that the difference between clean and unclean meats, commanded to be observed by the law of Moses, is taken away; and that he may now lawfully eat any sort of food; every creature of God being good, and none to be refused, because of the ceremonial law which is abrogated, provided it, be received with thanksgiving, and used to the glory of God: another who is weak eateth herbs; meaning not one that is sickly and unhealthful, and of a weak constitution, and therefore eats herbs for health's sake; but one that is weak in the faith, and who thinks that the laws concerning the observance of meats and drinks are still in force; and therefore, rather than break any of them, and that he may be sure he does not, will eat nothing but herbs, which are not any of them forbidden by the law: and this he did, either as choosing rather to live altogether on herbs, than to eat anything which the law forbids; or being of opinion with the Essenes among the Jews, and the Pythagoreans among the Gentiles, who thought they were to abstain from eating of all sorts of animals. HE RY, “Concerning meats (Rom_14:2): One believeth that he may eat all things - he is well satisfied that the ceremonial distinction of meats into clean and unclean is no longer in force, but that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; nothing unclean of itself, Rom_14:14. This he was assured of, not only from the general tenour and scope of the gospel, but particularly from the revelation which Peter, the apostle of the circumcision (and therefore more immediately concerned in it), had to this purport, Act_10:15, Act_10:28. This the strong Christian is clear in, and practises accordingly, eating what is set before him, and asking no question for conscience' sake, 1Co_10:27. On the other hand, another, who is weak, is dissatisfied in this point, is not clear in his Christian liberty, but rather inclines to think that the meats forbidden by the law remain still unclean; and therefore, to keep at a distance from them, he will eat no flesh at all, but eateth herbs, contenting himself with only the fruits of the earth. See to what degrees of mortification and self-denial a tender conscience will submit. None know but those that experience it how great both the restraining and the constraining power of conscience is. JAMISO , “one believeth that he may eat all things — See Act_10:16. another, who is weak, eateth herbs — restricting himself probably to a vegetable diet, for fear of eating what might have been offered to idols, and so would be unclean.
- 36. (See 1Co_8:1-13). CALVI ,“2.Let him who believes, etc. What [Erasmus ] has followed among the various readings I know not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’ words, is complete; and instead of the relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “ indeed believes,” etc. That I take the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a mode of speaking very usual with Paul. (416) He then calls those believers who were endued with a conscience fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the mean time the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought was not lawful. If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not right that he who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who are yet tender and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick,as some have done, is absurd. (416) This is true, but the passage here seems not to require such a CONSTRUCTION . Both sentences are declarative, announcing a fact respecting two parties: the one believed he might eat everything; the other did eat only herbs. The relative ὃς when repeated, often means “” as in Rom_13:5, and in 1Co_11:21 : and the article ὁ stands here for that repetition; an example of which Raphelius adduces from the Greek classics. Some think that this abstinence from meat was not peculiar to the Jews; but that some Gentiles also had scruples on the subject. It is true that heathens, who held the transmigration of souls, did not eat flesh: but it is not likely that abstinence, arising from such an absurd notion, would have been thus treated by the Apostle. It indeed appears evident, that the abstinence here referred to did arise from what was regarded to be the will of God: and though abstinence from all animal food was not enjoined on the Jews, yet it appears from HISTORY that Jews, living among heathens, wholly abstained, owing to the fear they had of being in any way contaminated. This was the case with Daniel and his companions, Dan_1:8. Professor [Hodge ] says, in a NOTE on this passage, “ states in his life (chapter 23) that certain Jewish priests, while at Rome, lived entirely upon fruit, from the dread of eating anything unclean.” We may also suppose that some of the Essenes, who abstained from meat and from wine, were among the early conver MACARTHUR “The Jews had been raised to do what was kosher, which comes from the Hebrew word kashar, meaning "fit" or "right." The primary focus of kashar is on diet and the observation of special days. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 detail the dietary restrictions. When Daniel was taken into captivity in Babylon he was told to eat the king's food, which wasn't kosher (Dan. 1:5). Verse 8 says Daniel decided not to eat it. He and his three friends, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, would not compromise their Jewish convictions. They were right in maintaining the dietary laws because God had ordained them, and they still were valid at that point in the history of Israel.” Luther made it clear to his people that the old laws dealing with food are obsolete. He said, “On the contrary, every day is a holiday, every kind of food is permitted, every place is sacred, every time if suitable for fasting, every garment is allowed.
- 37. Everything is freeas long as there is practiced moderation and love…” 1 Timothy 4:4-5--"Every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." Paul made that statement in response to those who forbade others from eating certain foods. Acts 10:15--After the Lord declared all animals clean, He told Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." Macarthur “The strong believer is right--you can eat anything, at least anything that is not injurious to your body. There are no dietary restrictions. We are not under the ceremonial laws of Moses. Every so often I hear some churches say believers shouldn't eat anything that was considered unclean in the Old Covenant. But that's not true--there are no such restraints in the ew Covenant. “Paul in verse 2 may have been referring to strong Jewish believers, who were not burdened by eating pork or having their food cooked a certain way. He may also have been referring to strong Gentile believers, who understood that food offered to idols was no big deal because an idol is nothing.” Paul is dealing with differences and diversity of diet. Variety is possible without any damage to unity is Paul's message. The Christian who can eat anything accepts the words of Christ, " ot that which entereth into a man defiles him." His Christian liberty permits him to eat anything without his conscience being sensitive. He can eat pork and could care less if his Jewish friends think he is terrible. He can eat meat on friday even if his Catholic friends feel he is terrible. He has no qualms about what he eats at all, and is not limited by any rules concerning food. He has reduced his rules to simply two: What he likes and what he doesn't. The weak Christian on the other hand is always questioning whether he is defiling himself or not. To prevent any defilement he stays away from all meat and sticks to vegetables. He plays it safe and does not take any chances of violating some food law. His bondage keeps him from experiencing much of the pleasure of eating. He has little liberty in Christ, and is still pretty much under the law. It is a weakness to have scruples over such things says Paul, but we are to be careful not to despise those with such scruples. He just cannot grasp that the law of Moses has been superceeded by Christ. This may not be just Jewish converts, for it could also be Gentiles saved from their loyalty to pagan idols, and they no longer want anything to do with the meat offered to those idols. Rather than take any chances on getting meat offered to idols in the market they become total abstainers. Either way, legalism is considered a weakness of faith. Christian may be invited to the home of relative who is not a Christian, and they are serving meat that he knows has been offered to idols. What should he do? Some will go ahead and eat it and thank God, others will make some excuse and decline it.
- 38. Food is notan issue today, but as C.S. Lovett points out, the choices of the strong Christian today can really rub the weak ones the wrong way. He writes, "They may mow their lawns on Sunday, live in expensive homes, have a glass of wine on special occasions, see a certain movie, or believe in cremation with perfect liberty." must understand that both groups, weak and strong, were well grounded in grace (Rom. 15:14). Weak and strong is confined to specific things mentioned in this chapter. The weak believers were weak in one specific area--They were not yet convinced that God had abolished all distinctions of meats and days which He had established under the Old Covenant. The strong believers were convinced that all those things had been abolished. Paul states in Romans 14:14 that he is persuaded that all the distinctions of clean and unclean meats as well as all distinctions of days have been abolished by way of fulfillment in Christ. BAR ES Josephus says (Life, Section 3) that in his time there were certain priests of his acquaintance who “supported themselves with figs and nuts.” These priests had been sent to Rome to be tried on some charge before Caesar: and it is probable that they abstained from meat because it might have been offered to idols. It is expressly declared of Daniel when in Babylon, that he lived on pulse and water, that he might not “defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank;” Dan_1:8-16. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. BAR ES, “Let not him that eateth - That is, he who has no scruples about eating “meat,” etc., who is not restrained by the Law of the Jews respecting the Clean and unclean, or by the fact that meat “may” have been offered to idols. Despise him - Hold him in contempt, as being unnecessarily scrupulous, etc. The word “despise” here is happily chosen. The Gentile would be very likely to “despise” the Jew as being restrained by foolish scruples and mere distinctions in matters of no importance. Him that eateth not - Him that is restrained by scruples of conscience, and that will
- 39. eat only “vegetables;”Rom_14:2. The reference here is doubtless to the “Jew. Judge him - To “judge” here has the force of “condemn.” This word also is very happily chosen. The Jew would not be so likely to “despise” the Gentile for what he did as to “judge” or condemn him. He would deem it too serious a matter for contempt. He would regard it as a violation of the Law of God, and would be likely to assume the right of judging his brother, and pronouncing him guilty. The apostle here has happily met the whole case in all disputes about rites, and dress, and scruples in religious matters that are not essential. One party commonly “despises” the other as being needlessly and foolishly scrupulous; and the other makes it a matter of “conscience,” too serious for ridicule and contempt; and a matter, to neglect which, is, in their view, deserving of condemnation. The true direction to be given in such a case is, “to the one party,” not to treat the scruples of the other with derision and contempt, but with tenderness and indulgence. Let him have his way in it. If he can be “reasoned” out of it, it is well; but to attempt to “laugh” him out of it is unkind, and will tend only to confirm him in his views. And “to the other party,” it should be said they have no “right” to judge or condemn another. If I cannot see that the Bible requires a particular cut to my coat, or makes it my duty to observe a particular festival, he has no right to judge me harshly, or to suppose that I am to be rejected and condemned for it. He has a right to “his” opinion; and while I do not “despise” him, he has no right to “judge” me. This is the foundation of true charity; and if this simple rule had been followed, how much strife, and even bloodshed, would it have spared in the church. Most of the contentions among Christians have been on subjects of this nature. Agreeing substantially in the “doctrines” of the Bible, they have been split up into sects on subjects just about as important as those which the apostle discusses in this chapter. For God hath received him - This is the same word that is translated “receive” in Rom_14:1. It means here that God hath received him kindly; or has acknowledged him as his own friend; or he is a true Christian. These scruples, on the one side or the other, are not inconsistent with true piety; and as “God” has acknowledged him as “his,” notwithstanding his opinions on these subjects, so “we” also ought to recognise him as a Christian brother. Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them. CLARKE, “Let not him that eateth - The Gentile, who eats flesh, despise him, the Jew, who eateth not flesh, but herbs. And let not him, the Jew, that eateth not indiscriminately, judge - condemn him, the Gentile, that eateth indiscriminately flesh or vegetables. For God hath received him - Both being sincere and upright, and acting in the fear of God, are received as heirs of eternal life, without any difference on account of these religious scruples or prejudices. GILL, “Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not,.... Such who had a greater degree of Gospel light and knowledge, and made use of their Christian liberty in eating any sort of food, were not to despise as they were apt to do, such as abstained therefrom on account of the ceremonial law, as weak, ignorant; superstitious, and
- 40. bigoted persons; orwere not to set them at naught, or make nothing of them, as the word signifies, have no regard to their peace and comfort; but, on the other hand, were to consider them as brethren in Christ, though weak; and as having a work of God upon their souls, and therefore to be careful how they grieved them, destroyed their peace, or laid stumblingblocks in their way: and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth: such who thought it not their duty to eat anything, but to forbear the use of some things directed to in the law, were not to censure and condemn, as they were apt to do, those who used their liberty in these things, as profane persons, and transgressors of the law of God; but leave them to the last and righteous judgment, when every one must be accountable to God for the various actions of life: the reason used to enforce this advice on both parties is, for God hath received him: which respects both him that eateth, and him that eateth not, him that is despised, and him that is judged; and is a reason why one should not despise, nor the other judge, because God had received both the one and the other into his heart's love and affection, into the covenant of grace, and into his family by adoption: they were received by Christ, coming to him as perishing sinners, according to the will of God; whose will it likewise was, that they should be received into church fellowship, as being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and God had also received them into his service, and they were made willing to serve him, as well as to be saved by him; and did serve him acceptably with reverence and godly fear, in righteousness and holiness; and this is the rather to be taken into the sense of this passage, because of what follows. HE RY, “ Those who are strong must by no means despise the weak; nor those who are weak judge the strong, Rom_14:3. This is levelled directly against the fault of each party. It is seldom that any such contention exists but there is a fault on both sides, and both must mend. He argues against both these jointly: we must not despise nor judge our brethren. Why so? (1.) Because God hath received them; and we reflect upon him if we reject those whom he hath received. God never cast off any one that had true grace, though he was but weak in it; never broke the bruised reed. Strong believers and weak believers, those that eat and those that eat not, if they be true believers, are accepted of God. It will be good for us to put this question to ourselves, when we are tempted to behave scornfully towards our brethren, to disdain and censure them: “Hast not God owned them; and, if he has, dare I disown them?” “Nay, God doth not only receive him, but hold him up, Rom_14:4. You think that he who eateth will fall by his presumption, or that he who eateth not will sink under the weight of his own fears and scruples; but if they have true faith, and an eye to God, the one in the intelligent use of his Christian liberty and the other in the conscientious forbearance of it, they shall be held up - the one in his integrity, and the other in his comfort. This hope is built upon the power of God, for God is able to make him stand; and, being able, no doubt he is willing to exert that power for the preservation of those that are his own.” In reference to spiritual difficulties and dangers (our own and others), much of our hope and comfort are grounded upon the divine power, 1Pe_1:5; Jud_1:24.
- 41. JAMISO , “Letnot him that eateth despise — look down superciliously upon “him that eateth not.” and let not him that eateth not judge — sit in judgment censoriously upon “him that eateth.” for God hath received him — as one of His dear children, who in this matter acts not from laxity, but religious principle. CALVI , “3.Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties. They who were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were scrupulous about insignificant things, and also derided them: these, on the other hand, were hardly able to refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow; for whatever they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil. Hence he exhorts the former to refrain from contempt, and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason which he adds, as it belongs to both parties, ought to be APPLIED to the two clauses, — “ you see,” he says, “ man illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.” (417) (417) The last clause is by [Haldane ] confined to the strong, and he objects to this extension of it; and certainly the following verse is in favor of his view, for the weak, the condemner, is the person reproved, and therefore the strong is he who to his own master stands or falls. The condemner throughout is the weak, and the despised is the strong. — Ed MEYER, “ CONSIDERATION TOWARD BRETHREN Rom_14:1-12 The weak conscience needs further instruction. It is anemic and requires the hilltop, with its further view and bracing air; but in the meantime its owner must be guided by its promptings. A man must not take a certain course merely because others do so, unless he can justify their bolder faith and larger freedom. By thought and prayer and the study of God’s Word, conscience becomes educated and strengthened, and ceases to worry as to whether we should be vegetarian or not; whether we should observe saints’ days, or adopt a specific method of observing the Sabbath. Some people are constantly wondering and questioning about such things, as though their eternal salvation depended on minute observances. Such would have found but scant comfort from the Apostle. He would have said, “Do the best you know, and when you have once adopted a certain method of life, follow it humbly, until some wider view is opened before you by the Spirit of God.” The main principle for us all is to live and die to please our Lord. He is our Master, and it will be for Him to allot our rewards. In the meantime let us not judge one another, but live in love, leaving each to work out the plan of his own life as his Master directs. John Stott writes: "the best way to determine what our attitude toward people
- 42. should be isto determine what God's attitude toward them is."[ The whole point of Paul is that Christians can hold a lot of contrary convictions and be acceptable to God, just as children who are radically different can be equally acceptable to the parents. God is a God of variety and He does not mind at all that His children are different in many ways. The key thing is that they accept each other and not try to force each other into their own mold. MACARTHUR, “The Greek word translated "despise" means, "to treat someone as nothing" or "to look at someone with disdain or contempt." The strong believer should not look with contempt on one who doesn't fully understand his freedom in Christ. Sad to say, the church is full of liberated brethren who want to condemn those who are more confined in their thinking. I see that tendency in the church, and I sense that tendency in myself. When we come across believers who want to subject us to a pile of unnecessary rules, we're tempted to view them with contempt. Liberal Christians think conservatives are narrow and stupid. Conservatives think liberals are ungodly and will suffer great judgment. Paul says they are both wrong when they try to ridicule and condemn each other. Strength tends to be contemptuous toward weakness and feels it is narrowmindedness. The strong Christian feels the weak are stupid for worrying about the old regulations they lived under before. On the other hand, the weak say these disgraceful Gentiles are lawless and live only for their own pleasure and so do as they please. They will lead the church right into the hands of the world. Both fears of legalism and liberty can be justified, for Christians do go both ways to extremes, but the fact is, they are both to be accepting of each other, and this is the key to keeping each from being extreme. There will always be liberals and conservatives in every Christian group of people, and if they do not learn how to get along, they will always have problems and never be the church they are called to be. Karl Barth writes, "The Pauline Christian does not complain of those who hold opinions differing from his own, nor does he abuse them; rather he stands behind them sympathetically asking them questions. He has discovered he is his own worst enemy long before he has experienced the hostility of others." "Weak is the man who allows himself to be pushed into a position from which he judges others." Warren Wiersbe points out that the battle with disunity has always been a major problem with God's people. The Corinthians were divided over human leaders, and some members were even suing each other-I Cor. 1:10-13; 6:1-8. The Galatian saints were biting and devouring one another-Gal. 5:15. In the church at Philippi, two women were at odds with each other and were splitting the church-Phil. 4:1-3. He writes also, "Some of us can remember when
- 43. dedicated Christians opposedChristian radio "because Satan was the prince of the power of the air!" Fashions change from year to year...........Some people even make Bible translations a test of orthodoxy." Wiersbe sees an interesting illustration in John 21:15-25 where Peter is asking about what John will do, and Jesus says, "What is that to thee? Follow thou me!" Jesus was saying you just make sure you make me Lord of your life and let me worry about John. Christians so often try to be Lord of other Christians instead of leaving it to Him who is their Lord. He points out that Spurgeon and Joseph Parker were two of the greatest preachers in England, and they fellowshipped and even exchanged pulpits. They had a disagreement and Spurgeon accused Parker of being unspiritual because he attended the theater, and Spurgeon at the time smoked cigars which many condemned. Who was right? Who was wrong? Wiersbe said perhaps both were wrong, but they were not to be each others judge. He writes again, "What something does to a person determines its quality. One man may be able to read certain books and not be bothered by them, while a weaker Christian reading the same books might be tempted to sin." As the Judaizing teachers of apostolic times, they make laws where God has not, making their view the test of fellowship (Acts 15:1). In this chapter no judging is allowed! o judging, no arguing, no debating!!!, no disputing, and O CE SORI G. But sin and false doctrine is to be condemned (Romans 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:3; Eph. 5:11; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21). STEDMA It involves, first, no criticizing of such people or censoring of them. We are not to go up to them and tell them, "I do not see how you can be a Christian and do things like that." That has nothing to do with being a Christian. Their Christianity is established on grounds other than those. It means no categorizing of such people, no classifying them as carnal Christians or reproving or rebuking them. In these areas we have no rights to reprove or rebuke. The church has no authority in these areas. It means no legislating against them; no imposing of behavioral standards or codes without the agreement of all those who are affected by them. That has given rise to a tremendous distortion of Christianity in the eyes of the world. It has given rise to the idea that Christianity is a "do not do something" idea, a "don't" religion. This distorts the freedom that is the message of the gospel. It propagates the feeling that Christianity is a set of rules to be obeyed, and the freedom of the sons of God is denied. The world therefore, gets a totally false idea of what the church is all about. This has happened widely in our day and for the most part, I think, the "narrow party" has triumphed in the evangelical churches. This is why many people will not touch the church with a 25-foot pole, even though they are fantastically interested in the gospel. They see the church as having imposed
- 44. standards and rulesof conduct that have nothing to do with the Scriptures. These are artificial regulations that only the church has brought about. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. BAR ES, “Who art thou ... - That is, who gave you this right to sit in judgment on others; compare Luk_12:14. There is reference here particularly to the “Jew,” who on account of his ancient privileges, and because he had the Law of God, would assume the prerogative of “judging” in the case, and insist on conformity to his own views; see Acts 15. The doctrine of this Epistle is uniformly, that the Jew had no such privilege, but that in regard to salvation he was on the same level with the Gentile. That judgest ... - compare Jam_4:12. This is a principle of common sense and common propriety. It is not ours to sit in judgment on the servant of another man. He has the control over him; and if “he” chooses to forbid his doing anything, or to allow him to do anything, it pertains to “his” affairs not ours. To attempt to control him, is to intermeddle improperly, and to become a “busy-body in other men’s matters;” 1Pe_4:15. Thus, Christians are the servants of God; they are answerable to him; and “we” have no right to usurp “his” place, and to act as if we were “lords over his heritage;” 1Pe_5:3. To his own master - The servant is responsible to his master only. So it is with the Christian in regard to God. He standeth or falleth - He shall be approved or condemned. If his conduct is such as pleases his master, he shall be approved; if not, he will be condemned. Yea, he shall be holden up - This is spoken of the Christian only. In relation to the servant, he might stand or fall; he might be approved or condemned. The master had no power to keep him in a way of obedience, except by the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment. But it was not so in regard to the Christian. The Jew who was disposed to “condemn” the Gentile might say, that he admitted the general principle which the apostle had stated about the servant; that it was just what he was saying, that he might “fall,” and be condemned. But no, says the apostle, this does not follow, in relation to the Christian He shall not fall. God has power to make him stand; to hold him; to keep him from error, and from condemnation, and “he shall be holden up.” He shall not be suffered to fall into condemnation, for it is the “purpose” of God to keep him; compare Psa_1:5. This is one of the incidental but striking evidences that the apostle believed that all Christians should be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation. Is able - See Joh_10:29. Though a master cannot exert such an influence over a servant as to “secure” his obedience, yet “God” has this power over his people, and will preserve them in a path of obedience.
- 45. CLARKE, “Who artthou that judgest another man’s servant? - Who has ever given thee the right to condemn the servant of another man, in things pertaining to his own master? To his own master he standeth or falleth. He is to judge him, not thou; thy intermeddling in this business is both rash and uncharitable. Yea, he shall be holden up - He is sincere and upright, and God, who is able to make him stand, will uphold him; and so teach him that he shall not essentially err. And it is the will of God that such upright though scrupulous persons should be continued members of his Church. GILL, “Who art thou that judgest another man's servant,.... This is another reason, dissuading from censoriousness and rash judgment, taken from civil things; one man has nothing to do with another man's servant; he has no power over him, nor any right to call him to an account for his actions; nor has he any business to censure or condemn him for them, or concern himself about them: so the believer supposed to be judged, does not belong to him that takes upon him to judge and condemn him; he is another's servant, he is the servant of God: he is chosen by God the Father for his service, as well as unto salvation; he is bought with the price of Christ's blood, and therefore not his own, nor another's, but Christ's, he is bought with his money; and he is also born in his house, the church; the Spirit of God in regeneration forms him for himself, for righteousness and holiness; under the influence of whose grace he voluntarily gives up himself to the service of God, and is assisted by him to keep his statutes and do them; and what has another to do with him? what power has he over him, or right to judge him? to his own master he standeth or falleth, the meaning of which is, either if he "stands", that is, if he serves his Lord and master, of which "standing" is expressive; and continues in the service of him, whose servant he professes to be; this is to his master's advantage and profit, and not to another's: and if he "falls", that is, from his obedience to him, as such who profess to be the servants of God may; they may fall off from the doctrine of grace they have embraced; and that either totally and finally, as such do who never felt the power of it in their hearts; or partially, from some degree of steadfastness in the faith: and such also may fall from a lively exercise of the graces of faith, hope, and love, and into great sins, which is to their master's dishonour, and cause his ways and truths to be evil spoken of; and so it is to their own master they fail: or else the sense is, to their own master they are accountable, whether they stand or fall, serve or disobey him; and it is according to his judgment and not another's, that they "stand", or are and will be justified and acquitted, and will hear, well done, good and faithful servant; and according to the same they will "fall", or be condemned, and hear, take the slothful and unprofitable servant, and cast him into outer darkness: so the words "standing" and "failing" are used by the Jews in a forensic sense, for carrying or losing a cause, for justification or condemnation in a court of judicature, and particularly in the last judgment: and so they explain Psa_1:5, "the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment": the Targum paraphrases it,
- 46. "the wicked shallnot be justified in the great day;'' and Jarchi upon the place says, there shall be no רגל ,הקמת "standing of the foot" of the wicked, in the day of judgment; see Luk_21:36. Yea, ye shall be holden upYea, ye shall be holden upYea, ye shall be holden upYea, ye shall be holden up; which words seem to be a sort of correction of the apostle's, as if he should say, why do I talk of falling, one that is a true servant of the Lord's shall not fall, at least not totally and finally, nor in the last judgment; for he is holden by the right hand of God, by the right hand of his righteousness, and is kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation: for God is able to make him standfor God is able to make him standfor God is able to make him standfor God is able to make him stand; and will make him stand: words of power oftentimes include willingness as well as ability; see Jdg_5:24. God will make such to persevere to the end, because he has loved them with an everlasting love, chosen them in Christ, made a covenant with them in him, and has put them into his hands, and made them his care and charge; Christ has redeemed them by his blood, now intercedes, and is making preparations for them in heaven; they are united to him, and are built on him, the sure foundation; and the Spirit of God has begun that good work, which shall be performed. God will make such to stand in judgment with intrepidity, and without shame, being clothed with the righteousness of his Son; and shall therefore have the crown of righteousness given them, and an abundant entrance administered into his kingdom and glory: hence they ought not to be judged by man's judgment, nor need they regard it. The Alexandrian copy reads, "the Lord is able", &c. HE RY, “ Because they are servants to their own master (Rom_14:4): Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? We reckon it a piece of ill manners to meddle with other people's servants, and to find fault with them and censure them. Weak and strong Christians are indeed our brethren, but they are not our servants. This rash judging is reproved, Jam_3:1, under the notion of being many masters. We make ourselves our brethren's masters, and do in effect usurp the throne of God, when we take upon us thus to judge them, especially to judge their thoughts and intentions, which are out of our view, to judge their persons and state, concerning which it is hard to conclude by those few indications which fall within our cognizance. God sees not as man sees; and he is their master, and not we. In judging and censuring our brethren, we meddle with that which does not belong to us: we have work enough to do at home; and, if we must needs be judging, let us exercise our faculty upon our own hearts and ways. - To his own master he stands or falls; that is, his doom will be according to his master's sentence, and not according to ours. How well for us is it that we are not to stand nor fall by the judgment one of another, but by the righteous and unerring judgment of God, which is according to truth! “While thy brother's cause is before thy judgment, it is coram non judice - before one who is not the judge; the court of heaven is the proper court for trial, where, and where only, the sentence is definitive and conclusive; and to this, if his heart
- 47. be upright, hemay comfortably appeal from thy rash censure.” JAMISO , “Who art thou that judges another man’s — rather, “another’s” servant? — that is, Christ’s, as the whole context shows, especially Rom_14:8, Rom_14:9. Yea, etc. — “But he shall be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand”; that is, to make good his standing, not at the day of judgment, of which the apostle treats in Rom_14:10, but in the true fellowship of the Church here, in spite of thy censures. HAWKER 4-8, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. (5) One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. (6) He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. (7) For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. (8) For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. I pass by the several circumstances related within these verses, interesting as they are, to call the Reader’s attention to what the Apostle hath said, of the lives of God’s people not being to themselves, but to the Lord; and their deaths the same. And to be sure, nothing can be more blessed, than the consideration. If there was no other passage in the word of God, in confirmation of the union and oneness between Christ and his people than this; the glorious truth, as it is here expressed, would be a full testimony. The Church of Christ, and every individual of that Church, hath life in Christ, and that from all eternity. And what comes from Christ, must lead to and terminate in Christ. They have their being in him, they derive all from him, they live to him: and in their departure, they die not as others die who die out of Christ, for they sleep in Jesus. S o the Apostle expresses it, 1Th_4:14. And the voice John heard from heaven, when pronouncing them blessed, declared this as the cause of their blessedness: they die in the Lord. Rev_14:13. everyone of the seed of Christ, is part of Christ. Christ and his seed are one. For, saith the Apostle, speaking of the Church, we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, Eph_5:30. Reader! do not lose sight of it, for it is most precious! And see to it, that there be a correspondence in every part of conversation. He that liveth to the Lord, liveth on the Lord, making Christ the all in all; living to him, by lively actings of faith, upon his Person, blood, and righteousness: such will die in the Lord. For God the Father’s Covenant love and faithfulness, God the Son’s finished redemption, and God the Spirit’s life-giving power; these are the same in life and death: and as the faithful live, so they die, rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. You do not have the authority to excommunicate anyone from the family of God, and so do not be so presumptuous as to try. God's children are like most children, however, they will accuse the other one of starting it. As children fight so do Christians, but they are all in the family and when it becomes serious it is sin. God accepts the reality of His kids being different, and as long as those differences are not on issues of vital importance, because they are
- 48. clearly matters Godhas not commanded or forbidden, we are to allow liberty for differences. Who are we to reject those that God receives? Judgemental Christians are like children who try to take over the role of the parents by going through their mail and deciding which pieces they should see and which they will throw away and prevent them from seeing. They put themselves above their parents and take over. They decide who will be their friends and who will not. You can see how ridiculous this would be, and Paul says you do the same thing when you reject and judge those whom God accepts. Just as you cannot fire someone you work with and must leave that up to the boss, so you cannot decide who is in the family of God or not because they differ from you. Lenski writes, "The weak often do more harm in the church than the strong." We have thus the tyranny of the weak. They tend to be more judgmental. It is always a risk to be judgmental of another believer. Parker writes, "That is the annihilating question. It brings every man up sharply, when he is asked to produce his title." Who are you? Where are your credentials as a God appointed judge?The wiser the Christian the less likely he will be passing judgment on a fellow believer for some practice that is not forbidden by God. If the manager of the store likes the way clerk B does the job, you have no business trying to get that clerk to do it your way, even if you are clerk A with years more experience. Unless you are in a position of authority you have no right to be telling others what should or should not be done. This is Paul's way of saying politely, mind your own business. God is a master who does not require all his servants to conform to one another like robots made of the same metal. He who made everything in creation unique does not expect to see his highest creation all the same. The Christian who does not have an appreciation for variety has a poor concept of the nature of God. In men whom men condemn as ill, I find so much of goodness still; In men whom men pronounce divine, I find so much of sin and blot. I do not dare to draw a line Between the two, where God has not. Joaquin Miller God can make sure that the Christian that walks closer to the edge than you, can stand and not fall. You might fall trying some of the things he does, but do not judge him evil because you could not handle it. , save us from the arrogance
- 49. of our convictionsand conceits; Lest winning with intolerance, Our victories prove our defeats. Our unity is not based on uniformity of opinions, but on a common Master to whom we are loyal. This is the glue that holds Christians together, even when they disagree on many things. James w. Crawford writes, "Love finds itself tested in all human circumstances, most especially in the church. In a large urban congregation, he says, your church attendance patterns will differ, your prayer styles may vary, your ways of service will be dissimilar, your ears may be deaf to one another's religious language. But that is not enough to divide you. What holds us together is not so much a simple religious compatibility. What holds us together lies in our conviction of a Divine love that will never let us go no matter how stupid and wrong our own religious opinions, thus making it possible for each of us to treat one another as God has treated us, living in tension, to be sure, but never, in the name of the Gospel, writing one another off, always, as Paul writes to his Roman friends, always welcoming one another, expecting to gain a new friend, open to hearing a new truth." Again a pastor writes, "We have a few families in our church who don’t observe Christmas as a gift-giving holiday and don’t have a Christmas tree. They have personal convictions regarding the origin of these traditions and the value of observing them for their children. That’s OK. But if they began criticizing the church for having a Christmas tree up here on the platform or if they began to lobby other families to abandon the practice of giving gifts from St. ick, that would be inappropriate. "Don’t let anyone judge you in regard to a religious festival." ow friends, don’t take this too far. If the festival itself is pagan in practice, like Mardi Gras, I don’t think Paul would apply these exhortations. But the average family’s Christmas observance is far from that." "It’s amazing, isn’t it, how often Christians have been divided over this category of "things that don’t matter." Once in a while churches are split over the things that are right or the things that are wrong--but I think it happens even more often over things that don’t matter. One of the tragedies of the evangelical church in the U.S. is that we have the luxury of fighting over petty, nitpicking things because we feel so secure. The church in China doesn’t get exercised over things that don’t matter-- they’re just trying to survive. They don’t argue over what day to worship--they’re glad to worship any time. But here where there are few real enemies trying to take over our churches, we tend to call anyone who differs from us on some petty issue an "enemy" and we fight him." "I know whereof I speak. I grew up in the IFCA, an association of Bible churches and independent Baptist churches which had the tendency to feel they were the only ones standing true to the faith. Among the things for which
- 50. you could fallout of good graces in those churches back in the 50's were: playing cards, going to the cinema, smoking, using any alcoholic beverage, reading the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in public, participating in sports on Sunday, mixed swimming, chewing, pop music, dancing, playing the saxophone in church, and even reading the newspaper comics on Sunday." STEDMA That is very plain, is it not? The reason we are not to judge each other is that we are not responsible for one another's conduct in this area. Such responsibility is not defined in the Scriptures. This is an open area that each one has to decide before God, and, therefore, we have no responsibility to change each other and no authority to do so. He is not your servant, Paul says; the Lord chose him. The Lord, then, is the one responsible to change him. The Lord chose him without asking you or me. Half of you would not be here if I were choosing you! Oh, I do not know about that. I do not know you that well. But I did not choose you, therefore I do not have to change you either. or do you have to change me. We are not responsible for each other in this area. The thing Paul brings out (Verse 4) is that the man under consideration is being changed. He is on his way to standing. He will stand, Paul says. Stand, of course, means that he will be straightened out if he is doing wrong in this area. If it is really wrong, God will straighten him out and it is not up to you to do it. This is why I enjoy so much that little pin that Bill Gothard gives out with the letters PBPGI FWMY, i.e., "Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet." We are all in the process of change. The Lord is doing it, and he will do it. He is changing us, and if we will just wait a little while we can see some of the changes. ow, if the problem is one of not understanding truth, the solution is teaching the truth more plainly. As people hear it and understand it, they will be freed from this. To try to force them into some kind of compliance with something they yet do not understand is ridiculous and futile. Therefore, be patient. If they are being exposed to truth, they will change. Let the Lord change them; it is his responsibility. ot only will he do so, but he is perfectly able to do so. God is able to do it. I like Phillips' translation here. He says, "God is well able to transform men into servants who are satisfactory." That is exactly what Paul is relying on here. "A legalist is someone who lives in mortal terror that someone, somewhere may be enjoying himself." We even had a poem: Believe as I believe, o more, no less, That I am right And no one else, confess. Feel as I feel Think only as I think, Eat what I eat
- 51. And drink butwhat I drink Look only as I look Do always as I do, Then and only then I’ll fellowship with you. Does all this mean we are never to judge and condemn legalism? ot so, for when it is a direct violation of God’s revealed will and when it is an offense to the Gospel of freedom in Christ it is to be challenged and fought. Paul did this when Peter fell back under the legalism of Judaism and refused to eat with Gentiles. It was an offense to Paul and he called Peter on it in Gal. 2:11-14 This was not a mere personal opinion or preference. It was a violation of God’s revealed will. It was a prohibited behavior. The Jewish dietary laws had been set aside in Acts 10:9-12, and Peter had clear revelation. He was influenced by the legalism of Jewish converts who could not cut themselves off from the law to enter into freedom in Christ. Acts 15:1-35 details the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council. Some of the church leaders wanted to hold to Judaism, especially a group known as Judaizers, who claimed a person couldn't be a Christian unless he kept the Mosaic law and was circumcised physically. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, said that some of the Jews at Rome ate only fruit for fear of eating something unclean (cited by Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977 reprint], p. 417). But the dietary laws had been abrogated long before. Jesus said, "There is nothing from outside of a man that, entering into him, can defile him; but the things which come out of him" (Mark 7:15). The pressure was on the Jews to maintain their heritage, and understandably they clung to it. Judgment is valid In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul says, "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Paul is pronouncing a curse on anyone who preaches another gospel. The issue Paul is addressing is a distortion of the message of redemption. In Galatians 4:8-9 he says, " evertheless then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after ye have known God, or rather are known by God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, unto which ye desire again to be in bondage?" After Paul preached the gospel in Galatia, Judaizers followed and said that grace can't save a person, claiming that true salvation must be accompanied by circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law. In verses 10-11 Paul adds, "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." In Galatians 5:1 he concludes, "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." In verses 3-4 he says, "I testify again to every man
- 52. that is circumcised.... Christ is become of no effect unto you." Why was Paul so bold in his approach? Because the Judaizers were teaching the Galatian church that Mosaic law and ceremony were necessary for salvation. Paul blasted that as another gospel. In Colossians 2:16-17 Paul says, "Let no man, therefore, judge you in food, or in drink, in respect of a feast day, or of the new moon, or of a sabbath day, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." ROBERT DEFFI BAUGH While differences in personal convictions should never cause Christians to separate from one another, there are a few good reasons for separation. There are times when Christians are to exclude professing Christians from fellowship. Church discipline, due to persistent, willful sin, divisiveness, or false teaching is one such time (see Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Titus 3:9-11; 2 John 7-11). Paul himself calls for separation from those who would call themselves Christians in his closing words in this Epistle to the Romans: i. ow I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting (Romans 16:17-18). When it comes to differences in convictions, Paul would have us know this is not an acceptable basis for excluding a brother from fellowship. Paul provides two illustrations of differing convictions in verses 1-12 of chapter 14: eating meat (14:2) and the observance of certain holidays (14:5). The meat- eater is the stronger believer while the vegetarian is weaker. Both the strong and the weak are tempted to sin against their brother. The danger for the strong believer is to look upon his weaker brother with contempt: “How could he be so shallow in his grasp of God’s grace and of Christian liberty?” The weaker brother stands in danger of condemning his stronger brother for his liberty in Christ: “How could he be so liberal? Does he not believe in separation?” Both of these brothers, the strong and the weak, are represented as judging the other. Both are looking down on each other, while at the same time thinking too highly of themselves. Paul offers several reasons why judging our brother concerning his convictions is evil. First, judging a brother because of his convictions is an offense against God. Judging is wrong because it takes God’s place as the One who is each man’s judge: “Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls” (14:4). It is also wrong because the man who judges sets himself above God’s Law. Convictions deal with those freedoms which the Law
- 53. allows. Thus, injudging a man’s convictions, we become judges of the Law, setting standards even the Law refuses to establish (see James 4:11). In this context, judging our brother goes even further. It either ignores God’s verdict or sets it aside. God, the Judge of all mankind, has accepted every person who comes to Him by faith in Christ. When we refuse to accept a fellow-believer, one whom God has accepted, we act contrary to God Himself. How dare we refuse to accept one whom He has accepted? God’s acceptance goes beyond this. He who began the good work is also He who will complete it (Philippians 1:6). When we pronounce judgment on a fellow-believer, we are pronouncing his downfall. Paul reminds us that he will surely stand, “for the Lord is able to make him stand” (14:4). Judging our brother concerning his convictions is a most serious error on our part, an act of rebellion against God and His gospel. While the matter over which we differ may be insignificant, the manner in which we differ, judging, is most significant. Second, judging our brother is wrong because we are distracted from paying attention to our own convictions and conduct before God. In verses 3 and 4, Paul focuses on our sin in judging a fellow-believer, showing that it is not our role to serve as our brother’s judge, but God’s. ow in verses 5-12, Paul places the spotlight where it should be—on our own convictions, not our brother’s. Tending to our brother’s business causes us to neglect our own. Paul clearly teaches us here to mind our own business. CALVI , “4.Who art thou who judgest, etc. “ you would act uncourteously, yea, and presumptuously among men, were you to bring another man’ servant, under your own rules, and try all his acts by the rule of your own will; so you assume too much, if you condemn anything in God’ servant, because it does not please you; for it belongs not to you to prescribe to him what to do and what not to do, nor is it necessary for him to live ACCORDING to your law.” Now, though the power of judging as to the person, and also as to the deed, is taken from us, there is yet much difference between the two; for we ought to leave the man, whatever he may be, to the judgment of God; but as to his deeds we may indeed form a decisive opinion, though not according to our own views, but according to the word of God; and the judgment, derived from his word, is neither human, nor another man’ judgment. Paul then intended here to restrain us from presumption in judging; into which they fall, who dare to pronounce anything respecting the actions of men without the warrant of God’ word. To his own Lord he stands or falls, etc. As though he said, — “ belongs rightly to the Lord, either to disapprove, or to accept what his servant doeth: hence he robs the Lord, who attempts to take to himself this authority.” And he adds, he shall indeed stand: and by so saying, he not only bids us to abstain from condemning, but also exhorts us to mercy and kindness, so as ever to hope well of him, in whom we perceive anything of God; inasmuch as the Lord has given us a hope, that he will fully CONFIRM , and lead to perfection, those in whom he has begun the work of grace. But by referring to the power of God, he means not simply, as though he had said, that God can do this if he will; but, after the usual manner of Scripture, he CONNECTS God’ will with his power: and yet he speaks not here of perpetuity, as though they must stand to the end whom God has once raised up; but he only reminds us, that we are to entertain a good hope, and that our judgments should lean this way; as he also teaches us in another place,
- 54. “ who beganin you a good work, will perform it to the end.” (Phi_1:6.) 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. BAR ES, “One man esteemeth - Greek “judgeth” κρίνει krinei. The word is here properly translated “esteemeth;” compare Act_13:46; Act_16:15. The word originally has the idea of “separating,” and then “discerning,” in the act of judging. The expression means that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the “Jews” uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths as especially sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity. Another “esteemeth - That is, the “Gentile” Christian. Not having been brought up amidst the Jewish customs, and not having imbibed their opinions and prejudices, they would not regard these days as having any special sacredness. The appointment of those days had a special reference “to the Jews.” They were designed to keep them as a separate people, and to prepare the nation for the “reality,” of which their rites were but the shadow. When the Messiah came, the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other special festivals of the Jews, of course vanished, and it is perfectly clear that the apostles never intended to inculcate their observance on the Gentile converts. See this subject discussed in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians. Every day alike - The word “alike” is not in the original, and it may convey an idea which the apostle did not design. The passage means that he regards “every day” as consecrated to the Lord; Rom_14:6. The question has been agitated whether the apostle intends in this to include the Christian Sabbath. Does he mean to say that it is a matter of “indifference” whether this day be observed, or whether it be devoted to ordinary business or amusements? This is a very important question in regard to the Lord’s day. That the apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations. (1) The discussion had reference only to the special customs of the “Jews,” to the rites and practices which “they” would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians as “Christians.” The inquiry pertained to “meats,” and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, etc.; and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord’s day is introduced here than that he advances principles respecting “baptism” and “the Lord’s supper.”
- 55. (2) The “Lord’sday” was doubtless observed by “all” Christians, whether converted from Jews or Gentiles; see 1Co_16:2; Act_20:7; Rev_1:10; compare the notes at Joh_20:26. The propriety of observing “that day” does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, and days of festivals and fasts. (3) It is expressly said that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honor God; Rom_14:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honor, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by “neglecting” his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to “honor the Lord Jesus,” and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead “this passage” as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it “just as it is,” that is, let “him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ.” Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker. Let every man ... - That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were “morally” wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the “Jew” esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word “be fully persuaded” denotes the highest conviction, not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination; see Rom_4:21; 2Ti_4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them. CLARKE, “One man esteemeth one day above another - Perhaps the word ᅧµεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, etc. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation; the Gentile Christian not having been bred up in this way had no such prejudices. And as those who were the instruments of bringing him to the knowledge of God gave him no such injunctions, consequently he paid to these no religious regard. Another - The converted Gentile esteemeth every day - considers that all time is the Lord’s, and that each day should be devoted to the glory of God; and that those festivals are not binding on him. We add here alike, and make the text say what I am sure was never intended, viz. that there is no distinction of days, not even of the Sabbath: and that every Christian is at
- 56. liberty to considereven this day to be holy or not holy, as he happens to be persuaded in his own mind. That the Sabbath is of lasting obligation may be reasonably concluded from its institution (see the note on Gen_2:3) and from its typical reference. All allow that the Sabbath is a type of that rest in glory which remains for the people of God. Now, all types are intended to continue in full force till the antitype, or thing signified, take place; consequently, the Sabbath will continue in force till the consummation of all things. The word alike should not be added; nor is it acknowledged by any MS. or ancient version. Let every man be fully persuaded - With respect to the propriety or non-propriety of keeping the above festivals, let every man act from the plenary conviction of his own mind; there is a sufficient latitude allowed: all may be fully satisfied. GILL, “One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima", or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, הלילות מכל הזההלילה נשתנה מה , "how different is this night from every other night" (n)? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost; also one day in a month above others, the first day of the month, or new moon; and one day in a week, the seventh day sabbath: now there were some, who thought that the laws respecting these days were still in force, particularly the latter, and therefore esteemed it above another: but let it be observed, that the man that did so was one that was weak in faith; the same man that ate herbs, because he would not be guilty of violating those laws, which ordered a distinction of meats to be observed, the same weak man esteemed one day above another, imagining the laws concerning the distinction of days were still obligatory, not rightly understanding the doctrine of Christian liberty, or freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law: another esteemeth every day alikeanother esteemeth every day alikeanother esteemeth every day alikeanother esteemeth every day alike; that is, one that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, knows that the distinction of days, as well
- 57. as of meats,is taken away, since the word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us, Christ the passover is sacrificed for us, the firstfruits of the Spirit have been received, and light by the church from the sun of righteousness, and Christ the true sabbath and rest is come; and therefore, being firmly persuaded there is no more holiness in days than there is in places, has the same regard for one day as another. The difference between these two lay here, the weak brother regarded a day for the sake of a day, as having by a positive law, he supposed to be in force, a superiority to another, and he regarded worship for the sake of this day; the stronger brother, though he also observed a day for divine worship, which is the Lord's day, since there must be some time for it as well as place, yet he observed the day for the sake of worship, and not worship for the sake of the day: let every man be fully persuaded in his own mindlet every man be fully persuaded in his own mindlet every man be fully persuaded in his own mindlet every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; this is the advice the apostle gives to both parties; his sense is, that he would have each of them fully enjoy their own principle and practice undisturbed; he would have the weak brother, that esteemed one day above another, indulged in his way, since it arose from weakness, until he had better light, nor should he be despised for his weakness; he would have the stronger Christian also peaceably enjoy his sentiment, and pursue what he believed to be right; nor should he be judged, censured, and condemned, as a profane person, and a transgressor of the law: his counsel is, that they would sit down and carefully examine the word of God, and act according to the best light they should receive from thence; and take care especially, that they did not act contrary to their own consciences, with doubt and hesitation; they ought to be thoroughly satisfied in their own minds, and being so, should content themselves with their different sentiments and practices, without despising or censuring one another. HE RY, “Concerning days, Rom_14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed one day above another - kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles; thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe
- 58. such a distinctionand to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Gal_4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness; and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial; now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes. 2. It was not so much the difference itself that did the mischief as the mismanagement of the difference, making it a bone of contention. (1.) Those who were strong, and knew their Christian liberty, and made use of it, despised the weak, who did not. Whereas they should have pitied them, and helped them, and afforded them meek and friendly instruction, they trampled upon them as silly, and humoursome, and superstitious, for scrupling those things which they knew to be lawful: so apt are those who have knowledge to be puffed up with it, and to look disdainfully and scornfully upon their brethren. (2.) Those who were weak, and durst not use their Christian liberty, judged and censured the strong, who did, as if they were loose Christians, carnal professors, that cared not what they did, but walked at all adventures, and stuck at nothing. They judged them as breakers of the law, contemners of God's ordinance, and the like. Such censures as these discovered a great deal of rashness and uncharitableness, and would doubtless tend much to the alienating of affection. Well, this was the disease, and we see it remaining in the church to this day; the like differences, in like manner mismanaged, are still the disturbers of the church's peace. But, II. We have proper directions and suggestions laid down for allaying this contention, and preventing the ill consequences of it. The apostle, as a wise physician, prescribes proper remedies for the disease, which are made up of rules and reasons. Such gentle methods does he take, with such cords of a man does he draw them together; not by excommunicating, suspending, and silencing either side, but by persuading them both to a mutual forbearance: and as a faithful daysman he lays his hand upon them both, reasoning the case with the strong that they should not be so scornful, and with the weak that they should not be so censorious. If the contending parties will but submit to this fair arbitration, each abate of his rigour, and sacrifice their differences to their graces, all will be well quickly. Let us observe the rules he gives, some to the strong and some to the weak, and some to both, for they are interwoven; and reduce the reasons to their proper rules. 1. Those who are weak must be received, but not to doubtful disputations, Rom_14:1. Take this for a general rule; spend your zeal in those things wherein you and all the people of God are agreed, and do not dispute about matters that are doubtful. Receive him, proslambanesthe - take him to you, bid him welcome, receive him with the greatest affection and tenderness; porrigite manum (so the Syriac): lend him your hand, to help him, to fetch him to you, to encourage him. Receive him into your company, and converse, and communion, entertain him with readiness and condescension, and treat him with all possible endearments. Receive him: not to quarrel with him, and to argue about uncertain points that are in controversy, which will but confound him, and fill his head with empty notions, perplex him, and shake his faith. Let not your Christian friendship and fellowship be disturbed with such vain janglings and strifes of words. - Not to judge his doubtful thoughts (so the margin), “not to pump out his weak sentiments concerning those things which he is in doubt about, that you may censure
- 59. and condemn him.”Receive him, not to expose him, but to instruct and strengthen him. See 1Co_1:10; Phi_3:15, Phi_3:16. JAMISO , “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day — The supplement “alike” should be omitted, as injuring the sense. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind — be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction. This is a basic principle that would save the Christian world so many controversies and church splits. There needs to be freedom to disagree on numerous things that God has not made clear that they are either commended or rejected. Bainton tells of just how ridiculous Christians can be in separation. The orthodox and some non- orthodox Christians would not stay in the same part of the arena they were condemned to die in, for they refused to be eater by the same lions. Freedom does lead to abuse, but as Luther said in his day when believers were allowed freedom and it was abused, wine and women can be abused, “…but shall we on that account prohibit wine and abolish women?” Everything can be abused, but this is no reason to deny the right to be different and to have different convictions on many things. Luther opposed the terrible killing of the Anabaptists for their beliefs in rebaptizing Lutherans. Many did so, however, believing they we doing the will of God. Intolerance of freedom has led to most all of the worst chapters in Christian history. Christians have killed each other over trivial issues. STEDMA That is a very impressive point. What Paul is saying is that God can read hearts and you cannot. These distinctions and differences of viewpoint arise out of honest conviction which God sees, even though you cannot. Therefore, the individual is not simply being difficult because he does not agree with you. He is acting on the basis of what he feels is right, so give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Believe that he is as intent on being real before God and true to him as you are, and if he feels able to indulge in some of these things you think are not right, then at least see him as doing so because he really feels that God is not displeased with him on that basis. Or, if he does feel limited and he feels he should not do certain things, do not get upset with him because he has not moved into freedom yet. Remember that he really feels that God would be displeased if he did those things; it is an honest conviction. The apostle makes clear here that every man should have that kind of a conviction, if he acts this way. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own heart," I heard some time ago of a girl who was a converted nightclub singer, a fresh, new Christian, who was asked to sing at a church meeting. She wanted to do her very best for the Lord whom she had come to love, and so she dressed up the best way she knew how and she sang a song that she thought was expressive of her faith. She did it in the 'torchy' style of the nightclub singer. Somebody came up to her afterwards and just ripped into her and said, "How can you sing a song like that
- 60. and claim tobe a Christian? God could never be happy with a Christian who dresses the way you do, and to sing in that kind of a nightclub style must be offensive to him." The poor girl was so taken back, she just stood there for a minute, and she broke into tears, and turned and ran. ow, that was a wrong and hurtful thing to do to her. Granted, later on she might have changed her style, but God has the right to change her, not you. Her heart was right and God saw the heart and honored it. I think that was something he was pleased with, not displeased. We must remember that we are not to make distinctions where God would not. Haldane, “ othing is more unlike the spirit of genuine Christianity than a contentious disposition.” Jewish Christians had a hard time changing from the Sabbath to Sunday, and they had a hard time changing some of their special days of celebration. Pagan converts would have the same problem for they would also have had special day in which they honored their pagan god. Ignatius who was martyred in 115 A.D. wrote, "Those who were concerned with old things have come to newnss of confidence, no longer keeping Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's Day, on whom our life, as risen again, through Him, depends." The strong feel all days are good just as all food is good, and they do not label some better or worse than others. The weak brother may close his shop on the Sabbath and be upset with the strong brother who keeps his open, and you can see how this was a touchy issue in that day. But no man can impose his conviction on another if he feels he is pleasing God by his choices of action. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. God wants us to use our own minds, and to struggle with issues and come to our own conclusions, for this is the only way to become mature. If you just accept others ideas all the time, you are like a child who just follows orders and never thinks through things for himself. This is a good idea for parenting also in areas that are not absolutes or matters of God's revelation. Mature Christians are guided by principles and not rules. It is one of the joys of the Christian life, that we are free to think for ourselves. It is not a matter of I can do as I please, but I am free to choose the way I feel best pleases my Lord. God made us free-willed beings for this very end, that He might have being who please Him, not because they have to, but because they choose to. ewell writes, "There is a sense in which these words reveal our liberty in Christ as does no other single passage. The law allowed no liberty of action in such things; its very spirit and essence was bondage to a letter. " Until Christians learn this basic law of love and grace they will be in confusion as to how Christians can have so many different views of many things in life. Christians are to be thinkers and searchers of the Word, and not mere followers of tradition and custom, and the persuasions of other people.
- 61. Luther writes, "Thereforeexamine yourself closely when you say your prayers, when you make your sacrifice, when you enter the church or when you do whatever else you have to do, whether you would do the same also if you had a free choice about it-and you will find out who you are before God. If you would not, if you would rather be free....., then what you are doing is worthless, because you are only a slave and a hireling." "Because of the diversity of conscience, therefore, it can happen that one man sins and another does the right thing in one and the same action which, as such, is allowed." He wrote this while still a Catholic professor and not as a Protestant. If I am convinced in my own mind that what I choose is good and pleasing to God, then I have an obligation to follow my conviction, even if other believers are convinced it is not pleasing to God. I should keep an open mind, for I could be wrong, but until I am shown this by some evidence, I must be faithful to my conviction. The Westminister Confession says, "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrine and commandments of men." ot always right in all mens eyes But faithful to the light within. Oliver Wendell Holmes We must respect the rights of the individual conscience and not set up our view of things as an absolute for all believers. The views held, however, should be held because they are convinced, that is, they have studied the issue and have weighed the evidence and are persuaded that their view is consistent with the will of God. This means Christians need to look at all sides of an issue and come to a conclusion based on an honest evaluation of the arguments and evidence, and not have a conviction based on ignorance. If I study the Word of God and am convinced that somthing is the will of God, I can disagree with great minds of the faith and be justified, for I have come to a conclusion that is based on honest searching for the truth. And I must recognize the right of all other Christians to do the same. I have to do what I feel is right, not what you feel or anybody else. You might take a view different than many you love, and even your mate. This is maturity, for the immature take the views of those they love and respect, without questioning if the Bible supports them. You are not saying you are right and they are wrong, but just that this is the best understanding for you at this time. All of this means that Christians should be a people who are open for debate without conflict. Get all the views and evidence out in the open so people can be persuaded. Milton wrote, "Let truth and falsehood grapple, whoever knew truth put to the worst in a free and open encounter...?" If one comes to a conviction that is somehow wrong, if he is sincerely wrong on a nonessential issue it is better than to be insincerely right. Persuasion is the only way of the Christian and never coersion.
- 62. Fosdick writes, "Libertyis always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have." Christian liberty can lead a Christian to sometimes take the same point of view as the non-Christian. The strong Christian eats the same meat, and treats everyday the same just as the pagan does. It is possible for the Christian to stand with a non- Christian opposed to other Christians. I remember working for a boss who was an atheist who loved to argue with a number of us who were Christians. I do not remember the issue, but I do remember that I thought the Christians on a certain issue were off the track and unrealistic, and I took his side against them. Morgan writes, "It is really passing strange how these and similarly unimportant matters have been, and continue to be, reasons for much bitterness between the children of God." Tom Roberts has written, "The issue of circumcision was also a major issue. Some confusion arose in the first century because some actions, previously required or forbidden under the law of Moses were loosed, thus permitting choice in things earlier commanded (Matt. 16:19). One example is that of circumcision, required under Moses, but loosed under the ew Covenant (Lev. 12:13; Rom. 2:29; 1 Cor. 7:18-19; Gal. 5:6). Circumcision was allowed (neither commanded nor forbidden), therefore a matter of liberty to men and a matter of indifference to God. One was neither better nor worse before God whether he practiced circumcision or did not. The creed-makers sought to bind where God had not bound, thus turning liberty into obligation. This area of liberty extended to many Jewish practices which, under the law, had been forbidden or required, but under the law of Christ, became expedients, options, liberties. With this understanding, Paul could travel among Jews and Gentiles without offense or hypocrisy, preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9:20-23). With practices peculiar to Jews (observing the Sabbath, eating unclean meats, etc.) Paul acted as a Jew. With practices peculiar to Gentiles (not observing the Sabbath, eating unclean meats), Paul acted as a Gentile. God's indifference to these matters allowed liberty of action. At no time did Paul confuse matters of liberty with sinful practices. He was never guilty of extending the principles of liberty to cover sin. is a violation of truth to bind where God has not bound, to require obedience in matters about which God is indifferent, to forbid options where choice is permitted. Consequently, Paul did not allow over-zealous Judaizing teachers to take away his privileges in Christ (Gal. 2:4-5; 5:1, 13). As with any liberty, one may choose to practice or not practice,
- 63. so long asthe liberty does not become a stumblingblock to others (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:29)." "It is likewise a violation of truth to loose where God has not loosed, to cover sinful doctrines and practices with the canopy of liberty, to suggest equality before God for sinful matters as though they are authorized." The more mature a Christian is the more they can be exposed to without being tempted to go astray. The strong Christian in this context is the more mature, who has a greater understanding of his freedom in Christ. Steve Seizler writes, " People who live with outward restrictions in their lives don't really have to live that way. If they were farther along in faith they could learn freedom. I remember when I first encountered this argument I was surprised by it. My earliest pictures of Christianity suggested that the people who were most like God were those who lived with the most severity in their lives, had the fewest freedoms, and said no to the most things. They were the truly advanced Christians. But Paul is arguing from the opposite direction. He is saying that real maturity comes from being controlled inside, from having the Spirit of God himself be so important in our lives, and our thinking be so much captured by him, that we are completely free to do anything. We choose over and over again to do what is right, courageous, creative, and holy because we have been changed from within. We can imagine someone who has just entered into the Christian life, and we hope they will have barriers and protections lovingly provided around them, because all the old habits of their lives are so deeply ingrained in them that they need to say no to a lot of things; they need to flee environments they can't handle. But we can also imagine people way at the other end of the maturity scale who have walked with the Lord a long time, and they have his character formed in them to such a degree that there are very few places that they are unwilling to go or things that they are unwilling to encounter. That is why Jesus was so free to go to the homes of arrogant Pharisees and to parties with drunks and harlots. There wasn't any setting that he was unwilling to go into; because when he was there he changed the setting, it didn't change him. He went in as the Lord, as the one who would bring his influence on that place, not fearing that it would influence him. "An odd picture came to mind as an illustration of this: If you were to see Mother Theresa visiting a crack house, what would you assume had taken place inside? My assumption would be that she had gone into that environment as God's servant to care for the people who were throwing their lives away, just as she has gone into scores of other such environments. But if you saw someone who was a week old in the Lord and had had a twenty-year cocaine habit exiting the crack house, you would draw a different conclusion. You would be worried that they had gone into a setting where they couldn't handle it."
- 64. Steve goes onto deal with issues that have come up in his church. "Let me ask you to think for a moment about some of the contemporary issues that would be analogous to eating meat offered to idols in Rome in the first century. Wealth can cause division among believers. The rich look at the poor and say, If these people weren't so irresponsible, if they would just take life seriously and get out of the mess they're in, it would be more honoring to God. On the other hand, the middle range look at the rich and say, How can they justify buying such an expensive car and taking such an extravagant vacation? Who do they think they are, anyway? We are unwilling to let God fix them; we would rather fix them ourselves. I have seen a real difference in this congregation between people who are comfortable using the language of modern psychology and those who are not. Some will say that the language of Scripture---justification, sanctification, glorification---describes the processes by which God gives life to the dead. We ought to continue to teach the Bible just as it was given to us. This is what the Lord intends for us. Others will say, If the contemporary culture uses words like co-dependent, dysfunctional, and so forth, we will use the language of the culture, infuse it with biblical thinking, and teach the truth that way. Each group questions whether the other is free to teach the way they do. Again, the master in this is Jesus. We must urge everyone to do what is right before the Lord rather than to say things as we ourselves say them. Music is another area where there is disagreement over what is to be approved for Sunday worship. Whose tastes ought to dominate? What is important and what isn't? There are correctional fads of all kinds that sweep through Christian groups. Perhaps in the kind of prayer meeting that is in vogue for the moment people hold hands, have silence, then raise hands, read a psalm, and read something in Latin. But others contend that the right way to have a prayer meeting is maximum spontaneity with no planning ahead. People advocate what is current or what is not current in methods for Bible study, conducting small group meetings, and evangelism as well. All of these come with booklets and lesson plans on how to do them, and people are either for them or against them. In the last ten years that I've been walking through issues with people in our congregation, probably the most difficult issues have had to do with family style: How should people raise their children? Should both parents work? What kind of schooling should their children have---a Christian school, private school, home-schooling, or the public schools? You make a decision that you've thought through, knowing your child, trusting your Lord, and doing your best as you decide together as a family. Then you find yourselves unable to believe that God could allow other people to come to a different conclusion, because you have worked so hard at deciding this and prayed so much about it. And so we subtly divide ourselves, perhaps remaining polite,
- 65. but not reallygiving other people the right to be different. The day of worship is no issue today for many large churches have gone to Saturday night and even Monday services for worship, but in Paul's day the issue of the Sabbath was a major issue. One pastor, however, tells of a church that was still very legalistic about the day of worship."I have a friend who was seeking ordination in another evangelical denomination here in St. Louis a few years back. He was rejected twice by his examining council because he refused to say he wouldn’t go to a Cardinal baseball game on Sunday afternoon. That violated their concept of the appropriate use of the Lord’s Day. I believe they were importing OT law into the church and were ignoring Romans 14:5. ow don’t misunderstand me. I believe the principle of one day of rest in seven goes all the way back to Creation and we violate that to our own detriment, but the demand that that be a certain day or that it be observed in a certain way is not in keeping with the T." " There are many today who make a major issue over holidays and are very angry at other Christians who keep these holidays which they say are pagan and satanic. But listen again to Paul:Col. 2:16 says, IV? "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a ew Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." Here two new items are added to the list of "things that don’t matter": drink and holidays. Some people get terribly exercised over what a Christian can or cannot drink; others find great bones of contention over the observance of Christmas, Easter, or Halloween. Paul says these are shadow issues. They generally don’t deserve the attention some people give them. In the overall complex of our belief structure, we need to recognize the place convictions play. Consider the following spectrum or hierarchy of beliefs, as I understand them: Prejudices: Men are better drivers than women. Opinions: President Bush was right to declare war against Iraq. Theories: Taking vitamin C reduces one's chance of getting sick. Convictions: The rapture will come before the great tribulation. As a Christian, I should not drink wine. Or, as a Christian, I am free to drink wine, in moderation. Knowledge or Understanding: Area = length times width. Biblical Doctrine or Theology: God is omniscient --He knows all. Biblical Principles: Whatever is not of faith is sin. Biblical Statements: All have sinned and fall short
- 66. of the gloryof God" (Romans 3:23). Biblical Commands: Flee from idolatry 1Corinthians 10:14) The convictions of which Paul speaks are behavioral beliefs. In Romans and 1 Corinthians, convictions are beliefs which govern our behavior. Convictions here are not as much a decision concerning what is true as a decision about what we should or should not do. Our convictions determine whether we will or will not eat meat, drink wine, or observe certain holidays. Convictions, by their very nature, are inferential. Convictions are not necessary concerning murder. Murder is sin. It is also against the law, whether God's Law or man's. Convictions are conclusions we reach when there are no hard and fast answers, no moral absolutes. Almost always, these convictions are inferential--the extension of certain beliefs we hold to be true and pertinent to a given circumstance or choice. Biblical revelation is not a matter of personal discretion. It is not a conviction to believe that murder is evil or that loving our enemy is good. Convictions take up where biblical revelation and human law leave off. Convictions determine what my conduct should be in those areas not specifically prescribed by Scripture. My convictions draw the line between what I will do and what I will not do as an exercise of Christian liberty. MACARTHUR, “Paul's point in verses 5-9 is that even though the practices of both strong and weak do vary, their motives is the same. Why does a weak brother keep the law and the traditions? Because he believes in his heart he is pleasing the Lord. Why does a strong brother enjoy the freedoms he's been given in Christ? Because he believes in his heart that pleases the Lord. CALVI , “5.One indeed, etc. He had spoken before of scruples in the choice of meats; he now adds another example of difference, that is, as to days; and both these arose from Judaism. For as the Lord in his law made a difference between meats and pronounced some to be unclean, the use of which he prohibited, and as he had also appointed festal and solemn days and commanded them to be observed, the Jews, who had been brought up from their childhood in the doctrine of the law, would not lay aside that reverence for days which they had entertained from the BEGINNING , and to which through life they had been accustomed; nor could they have dared to touch these meats from which they had so long abstained. That they were imbued with these notions, was an evidence of their weakness; they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining from what they thought to be unlawful, they evidenced piety, as it would have been a proof of presumption and contempt, had they done anything contrary to the dictates of conscience. Here then the Apostle APPLIES the best rule, when he bids every one to be fully assured as to his own mind; by which he intimates that there ought to be in Christians such a care for obedience, that they do nothing, except what they think, or rather feel assured, is pleasing to God. (418) And this ought to be thoroughly borne in mind, that it is the first principle of a right conduct, that men
- 67. should be dependenton the will of God, and never allow themselves to move even a finger, while the mind is doubtful and vacillating; for it cannot be otherwise, but that rashness will soon pass over into obstinacy when we dare to PROCEED further than what we are persuaded is lawful for us. If any object and say, that infirmity is ever perplexing, and that hence such certainty as Paul requires cannot exist in the weak: to this the plain answer is, — That such are to be pardoned, if they keep themselves within their own limits. For Paul’ purpose was none other than to restrain undue liberty, by which it happens, that many thrust themselves, as it were, at random, into matters which are doubtful and undetermined. Hence Paul requires this to be adopted, — that the will of God is to preside over all our actions. (418) “Unusquisque sententiae suae certus sit ;” ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ νοὶ πληροφορείσθω “unusquisque in animo suo plene certus esto — let every one be fully sure in his own mind,” [Beza ], [Pareus ]; “ every one be convinced in his mind,” [Macknight ]; “ every one freely enjoy his own sentiment,” [Doddridge ] This last is by no means the sense: Our own version is the best and the most literal, “ every man be fully persuaded in his own mind;” and with which [Calvin ] ’ exposition perfectly AGREES . For the meaning of the verb here see Rom_4:21. “ Greek word is a metaphor borrowed from ships, which are carried with full sail, and signifieth a most certain persuasion of the truth.” — [Leigh ]. The certain persuasion here refers to both parties — the eater and the abstainer: both were to do what they were fully convinced was agreeable to the will of God. — Ed. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. BAR ES, “He that regardeth - Greek, “Thinketh of;” or pays attention to; that is, he that “observes” it as a festival, or as holy time. The day - Any of the days under discussion; the days that the Jews kept as religious occasions. Regardeth unto the Lord - Regards it as “holy,” or as set apart to the service of God. He believes that he is “required” by God to keep it, that is, that the laws of Moses in regard to such days are binding on him. He that regardeth not the day - Or who does not observe such distinctions of days as are demanded in the laws of Moses. To the Lord ... - That is, he does not believe that God “requires” such an observance. He that eateth - The Gentile Christian, who freely eats all kinds of meat; Rom_14:2. Eateth to the Lord - Because he believes that God does not forbid it; and because he desires, in doing it, to glorify God; 1Co_10:31. “To eat to the Lord,” in this case, is to do it believing that such is his will. In all other cases, it is to do it feeling that we receive our
- 68. food from him;rendering thanks for his goodness, and desirous of being strengthened that we may do his commands. He giveth God thanks - This is an incidental proof that it is our duty to give God thanks at our meals for our food. It shows that it was the “practice” of the early Christians, and has the commendation of the apostle. It was, also, uniformly done by the Jews, and by the Lord Jesus; Mat_14:19; Mat_26:26; Mar_6:41; Mar_14:22; Luk_9:16; Luk_24:30. To the Lord he eateth not - He abstains from eating because he believes that God requires him to do it, and with a desire to obey and honor him. And giveth God thanks - That is, the Jew thanked God for the Law, and for the favor he had bestowed on him in giving him more light than he had the Gentiles. For this privilege they valued themselves highly, and this feeling, no doubt, the converted Jews would continue to retain; deeming themselves as specially favored in having a “special” acquaintance with the Law of God. CLARKE, “He that regardeth the day - A beautiful apology for mistaken sincerity and injudicious reformation. Do not condemn the man for what is indifferent in itself: if he keep these festivals, his purpose is to honor God by the religious observance of them. On the other hand, he who finds that he cannot observe them in honor of God, not believing that God has enjoined them, he does not observe them at all. In like manner, he that eateth any creature of God, which is wholesome and proper food, gives thanks to God as the author of all good. And he who cannot eat of all indiscriminately, but is regulated by the precepts in the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats, also gives God thanks. Both are sincere; both upright; both act according to their light; God accepts both; and they should bear with each other. GILL, “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord,.... The apostle strengthens the above advice with this reason, because what is done both by one and the other, is done unto the Lord. The weak brother that esteems one day above another, and regards the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, a new moon, or a seventh day sabbath, does it in obedience to the commands of the Lord, which he thinks are still binding, not knowing that they are disannulled by Christ; and the worship performed by him on any of those days is done in the name and strength of the Lord, with a view to his glory, and as believing it was pleasing in his sight; and whether he is right or wrong, it is to the Lord he does it, and to his own master he stands or falls. The following clause is omitted in the Alexandrian copy and some others, and in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, but is in most Greek copies, and retained in the Syriac and Arabic versions. And he that regardeth not the day, the Lord he doth not regard it; believing it is the will of the Lord, that all distinction of days should cease; and that the law of commandments contained in ordinances, respecting such Jewish days, is abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; and that it is to the honour the Lord not to observe them: for to regard the days of the feast of tabernacles, is tacitly to say, that the Word has not tabernacled among us; and to observe he days of the passover, is virtually to deny that
- 69. our passover issacrificed for us; and to keep the day of Pentecost, is all one as to affirm, that the firstfruits of the Spirit have not been given; and to regard a new moon, is in effect to say, that the church has not received evangelical light from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and to keep a seventh day sabbath, is a strong insinuation, as if Christ the true sabbath, in whom we have our spiritual and eternal rest, is not come; however, it is to the Lord that the stronger brother and more confirmed believer disregards any of those days; and it is to his own master he stands or falls, nor is he to be judged of man's judgment: and the same is the case of the eater, or non-eater of meats forbidden by the law: he that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks. The man that is strong in faith, and is fully persuaded by the Lord Jesus that all distinction of meats, as of days, is ceased, eats any thing, and every sort of food, that comes in his way, without making any difference; and when he eats or drinks at any time, it is all to the glory of God; which is a clear case, by his giving God thanks, as becomes him, for the food he eats: he acknowledges that these are the creatures of God, and his gifts to him; he gives him thanks for the right he has given him to eat of them, and for taking away the distinction of meats, and giving him the free use of his creatures; and the more thankful he is when he considers how unworthy he is of the least of these mercies: and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth, or, and giveth God thanks. The man that is weak in faith, that eateth not food forbidden by the law, abstains from such food, purely on account of the Lord, in obedience to his will, and with a view to his glory, supposing such a law to be in full force; and is thankful to God for the herbs he allows him to eat, or for other food not forbidden by the law: and therefore since each party shows such a religious concern for the glory of the Lord, the apostle argues they ought to be easy one with another. The Alexandrian copy reads, "and giveth the Lord thanks". HE RY, “Because both the one and the other, if they be true believers, and are right in the main, have an eye to God, and do approve themselves to God in what they do, Rom_14:6. He that regards the day - that makes conscience of the observance of the Jewish fasts and festivals, not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing to be as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labours, and worshipping God on those days - it is well. We have reason to think, because in other things he conducts himself like a good Christian, that in this also his eye is single, and that he regardeth it unto the Lord; and God will accept of his honest intention, though he be under a mistake about the observance of days; for the sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head: so good a master do we serve. On the other hand, he that regards not the day - that does not make a difference between one day and another, does not call one day holy and another profane, one day lucky and another unlucky, but esteems every day alike - he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother. If he be a good Christian, he does not, he dares not, do it from such a principle; and therefore we charitably conclude that to the Lord he does not regard it. he makes no such difference of days only because he knows God hath made none; and therefore intends his honour in endeavouring to dedicate ever day to him. So for the other instance: He that eateth whatever is set before him, though it be blood, though it be swine's flesh, if it be food convenient for him, he eateth to the Lord. He understands the liberty that God has granted him, and uses it to the glory of God, with an eye to his wisdom and goodness in enlarging our allowance now under the gospel, and taking off
- 70. the yoke oflegal restraints; and he giveth God thanks for the variety of food he has, and the liberty he has to eat it, and that in those things his conscience is not fettered. On the other hand, he that eatest not those meats which were forbidden by the ceremonial law, to the Lord he eateth not. It is for God's sake, because he is afraid of offending God by eating that which he is sure was once prohibited; and he giveth God thanks too that there is enough besides. If he conscientiously deny himself that which he takes to be forbidden fruit, yet he blesses God that of other trees in the garden he may freely eat. Thus, while both have an eye to God in what they do, and approve themselves to him in their integrity, why should either of them be judged or despised? Observe, Whether we eat flesh, or eat herbs, it is a thankful regard to God, the author and giver of all our mercies, that sanctifies and sweetens it. Bishop Sanderson, in his 34th sermon, upon 1Ti_4:4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from 1Co_10:30) before and after meat was the common known practice of the church, among Christians of all sorts, weak and strong: an ancient, commendable, apostolical, Christian practice, derived down from Christ's example through all the ages of the church, Mat_14:19; Mat_15:36; Luk_9:16; Joh_6:11; Mat_26:26, Mat_26:27; Act_27:35. Blessing the creatures in the name of God before we use them, and blessing the name of God for them after, are both included; for eulogein and eucharistein are used promiscuously. To clear this argument against rash judging and despising, he shows how essential it is to true Christianity to have a regard to God and not to ourselves, which therefore, unless the contrary do manifestly appear, we must presume concerning those that in minor things differ from us. Observe his description of true Christians, taken from their end and aim (Rom_14:7, Rom_14:8), and the ground of it, Rom_14:9. JAMISO , “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord — the Lord Christ, as before. and he ... not, to the Lord he doth not — each doing what he believes to be the Lord’s will. He that earth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks — The one gave thanks to God for the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the same for the herbs to which, for conscience’ sake, he restricted himself. From this passage about the observance of days, Alford unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, “The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY” (see Mar_2:28) - it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only “weakness” could imagine to be still in force - a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with. The motive of men with opposite convictions is to please God and do His will.
- 71. They are doingopposite things for the same reason. The chief end of man is to glorify God, and that is what each wants to do. Paul is making it clear that if the motive is right different convictions can be right even if they are opposite of the convictions of others. ewell writes, "Let those of legal tendencies mark this: That a man may regard not what we regard, and do so unto the Lord." A. M. Hunter writes, "The meat-eater who says grace over his steak gives God glory; but so does the vegetarian who asks a blessing over his salad." If you can give God thanks, then you can be sure that your motive is right. One says thank God for this meat, and the other says thank God I can leave it alone. Thanksgiving is the key test of whether or not you act in good conscience. This giving of thanks reveals that it was a common practice of early Christians to give thanks to God for their meals. Parker writes, "But the man who fasts cannot let the man who feasts alone: The man who feasts find it difficult not to remark upon the ascetic who has his days of fasting. Thus liberty is dishonored. The church which ought to represent every possible variety of opinion upon disputed questions is turned into a bare-garden. It should be the glory of the church that it can differ and yet agree. The church will never be one in mere matters of opinion. The Lord allows the liberty of individual judgment upon a thousand questions. For the Lord demands that we are not dealing with sinful practices or those that hold false doctrines. Clearly, Paul would not have made the statements 'for the Lord', 'and gives thanks to God', if these had been sinful practices. In contrast, the behavior of both men glorifies God. ote: God hears the prayers of both men ('give thanks to God'). MACARTHUR, “The veneration of days is a weakness. In Colossians 2:16 Paul says, "Let no man, therefore, judge you ... in respect of a feast day, or of the new moon, or of a sabbath day." In Galatians 4:9 he refers to such things as "beggarly elements." They are part of an old system. The ew Covenant frees us from having to observe special days. Paul is saying to do whatever you think you ought to do. Why? Because the veneration of days is not a moral issue. The Sabbath has been set aside. Paul is not concerned with Sabbaths and feast days, but he is concerned that people not train themselves to violate their conscience. If conscience tells you to keep a certain day, then you ought to keep it. If you train yourself to ignore your conscience, you will have problems because the Spirit of God leads subjectively through a person's conscience. Paul does not want anyone to have a conscience seared with a hot iron (1 Tim. 4:2)--a scarred conscience insensitive to truth and the prodding of God's Spirit. Don't train your conscience to do wrong. If your conscience tells you to abide by
- 72. certain preferential traditionsand taboos, then do so if you believe it pleases the Lord. Don't let anyone tell you not to. In Garry Friesen's Decision Making and the Will of God (Portland: Multnomah, 1980), the main point is that everything God wants you to know about His will for you is in the Bible. That's true, but I believe he ignores some things that Scripture teaches about keeping a pure conscience so God's Spirit can subjectively lead you. b) Deferring to another's conscience First Corinthians 8:7 says, "There is not in every man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled." In verse 8 Paul says that if it bothers a person to eat food offered to an idol, then don't make him eat it. In verse 9 he says, "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." I often hear believers criticizing weaker brothers for their attachment to something they need no longer hold to. By doing so they are pressuring them into doing something that will defile their conscience. That will make them feel guilty and drive them deeper into legalism. We all have to be patient for the Spirit of God, the Word of God, and the community of believers to bring that person to maturity. Paul continues in 1 Corinthians 8:11, "Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" Do you want to destroy a weaker brother by forcing him to abuse his conscience? Of course not! The conscience is a very important tool in the hands of God. Acts 23:1 says that "Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God." Paul not only obeyed the Word, but also did what he felt the Spirit of God prompted him to do in his conscience. CALVI , “6.He who regards a day, etc. Since Paul well knew that a respect for days PROCEEDED from ignorance of Christ, it is not probable that such a corruption was altogether defended by him; and yet his words seem to imply, that he who regarded days committed no sin; for nothing but good can be accepted by God. Hence, that you may understand his purpose, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion, which any one may have entertained as to the observance of days, and the observance itself to which he felt himself bound. The notion was indeed superstitious, nor does Paul deny this; for he has already condemned it by calling it infirmity, and he will again condemn it still more plainly. Now, that he who was held fast by this superstition, dared not to violate the solemnity of a particular day; this was approved by God, because he dared not to do any thing with a doubtful conscience. What indeed could the Jew do, who had not yet made such progress, as to be delivered from scruples about days? He had the word of God, in which the keeping of days was commended; there was a necessity laid on him by the law; and its abrogation was not clearly seen by him. Nothing then remained, but that he, waiting for a fuller revelation, should keep himself within the limits of his own knowledge, and not to avail himself of the benefit of liberty, before he embraced it by faith. (419) The same also must be thought of him who refrained from unclean meats: for if he ate in a doubtful state of mind, it would not have been to receive any benefit, from God’ hand, but to lay his own hand on forbidden things. Let him then use other things, which he thinks is allowed to him, and follow the measure of his knowledge: he will thus give THANKS to God; which he could not do,
- 73. except he waspersuaded that he is fed by God’ kindness. He is not then to be despised, as though he offended the Lord by this his temperance and pious timidity: and there is nothing unreasonable in the matter, if we say, that the modesty of the weak is approved by God, not on the ground of merit, but through indulgence. But as he had before required an assurance of mind, so that no one ought rashly of his own will to do this or that, we ought to consider whether he is here exhorting rather than affirming; for the text would better flow in this strain, — “ a reason for what he does be clear to every one; as AN ACCOUNT must be given before the celestial tribunal; for whether one eats meat or abstains, he ought in both instances to have regard to God.” And doubtless there is nothing more fitted to restrain licentiousness in judging and to correct superstitions, than to be summoned before the tribunal of God: and hence Paul wisely sets the judge before all, to whose will they are to refer whatever they do. It is no objection that the sentence is affirmative; for he immediately subjoins, that no one lives or dies for himself; where he declares, not what men do, but commands what they ought to do. Observe also what he says, — that we then eat to the Lord, or abstain, when we give thanks. Hence, eating is impure, and abstinence is impure, without thanksgiving. It is only the name of God, when invoked, that sanctifies us and all we have. (419) It has been suggested as a question by some, whether the Christian Sabbath is included here? The very SUBJECT in hand proves that it is not. The subject discussed is the observance of Jewish days, as in Gal_4:10, and Col_2:16, and not what belonged to Christians in common. — Ed. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. Interdependence is a universal fact in every time and place. Even those in solitary confinement can only survive because someone is bringing them food and water. We all need other people. Life is in relationships. The only place where total aloneness is possible is in hell. Plato said, “I was not born for myself alone; my country claims a part, my relatives claim a part, and my friends claim a part in me.” Some pretend they are self-sufficient, but this is an illusion. We are interdependent whether we recognize it or not. Barth, “There is no such thing as life in itself; there is only life in relation to God. There is no such thing as death in itself; there is only death in relation to God.” All that we do is in relationship to others and to God. othing is purely personal, for all of life is relationship. People who take their own life may feel that it is their business and totally personal, but they have a great impact on many others when they do it. Every one of us adds to the joy or woe of the world. Every living thing has a role to play in the total plan of God. “I live not wholly for
- 74. myself,” said abeautiful flower one fine morning as it lifted to the sun its crest sparkling with dewdrops. “I live not wholly for myself. Mortals come and gaze on me, and breathe my fragrance, and go away better than they came; for I minister to their perception of the beautiful. I give to the bee his honey, and to the insect his food; I help clothe the earth in beauty.” “I live not wholly for myself,” said a laughing mountain streamlet. “I know my tribute to the ocean is small, but still I am hastening to carry it there. And I try to do all the good I can on my way. The tree and the flower love my banks, for I give them life and nourishment; and even the grass which feels my influence has a greener hue…and men and animals seek my brink to assuage their thirst, and enjoy the shadow of the trees which I nourish. I live not wholly for myself.” Interdependence is a part of all of life. Am American soldier wounded in the far East owes his life to the Japanese scientist who isolated the bacillus of tetanus. If he needed a transfusion he is indebted to an Austrian, if he is shielded from typhoid fever it is by the help of a Russian, of if he is protected from Malaria it is due to an Italian. If he is saved from rabies it is because of a Frenchman. o man is an island, but all are aided in life by the help of many others. Paul is balancing out rights and responsibilities by making it clear that believers need each other, and so love is the dominant motive to follow. We influence each other, and we are in this battle together, and the primary goal is to help one another and not just get our own way. BAR ES, “For none of us ... - Whether by nature Jews or Gentiles. In the great principles of religion we are now united. Where there was evidence of a sincere desire to do the will of God there should be charitable feeling, through there was difference of opinion and judgment in many smaller matters. The meaning of the expression is, that no Christian lives to gratify his own inclinations or appetites. He makes it his great aim to do the will of God; to subordinate all his desires to his Law and gospel; and though, therefore, one should eat flesh, and should feel at liberty to devote to common employments time that another deemed sacred, yet it should not be uncharitably set down as a desire to indulge his sensual appetites, or to become rich. Another motive “may be” supposed, and where there is not positive “proof” to the contrary, “should be” supposed; see the beautiful illustration of this in 1Co_13:4-8. To live “to ourselves” is to make it the great object to become rich or honored, or to indulge in the ease, comfort, and pleasures of life. These are the aim of all people but Christians; and in nothing else do Christians more differ from the world than in this; see 1Pe_4:1-2; 2Co_5:15; 1Co_6:19-20; Mat_10:38; Mat_16:24; Mar_8:34; Mar_10:21; Luk_9:23. On no point does it become Christians more to examine themselves than on this. To “live to ourselves” is an evidence that we are strangers to piety. And if it be the great motive of our lives to live at ease Amo_6:1 - to gratify the flesh, to gain property, or to be distinguished in places of fashion and amusement - it is evidence that we know nothing of the power of that gospel which teaches us “to deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily. No man - No “one,” the same Greek word οᆒδείς oudeis which is used in the former part of the verse. The word is used only in reference to “Christians” here, and makes no affirmation about other people. Dieth to himself - See Rom_14:8. This expression is used to denote the
- 75. “universality” or the“totality” with which Christians belong to God. Every thing is done and suffered with reference to his will. In our conduct, in our property, in our trials, in our death, we are “his;” to be disposed of as he shall please. In the grave, and in the future world, we shall be equally his. As this is the great principle on which “all” Christians live and act, we should be kind and tender toward them, though in some respects they differ from us. CLARKE, “None of us liveth to himself - The Greek writers use the phrase, ᅛαυτሩ ζᇽν, to signify acting according to one’s own judgment, following one’s own opinion. Christians must act in all things according to the mind and will of God, and not follow their own wills. The apostle seems to intimate that in all the above cases each must endeavor to please God, for he is accountable to him alone for his conduct in these indifferent things. God is our master, we must live to him, as we live under his notice and by his bounty; and when we cease to live among men, we are still in his hand. Therefore, what we do, or what we leave undone, should be in reference to that eternity which is ever at hand. GILL, “For none of us liveth to himself,.... That is, none of us believers; others may, but these do not, at least they ought not, nor do they when under the influence of the grace of God: they do not live, neither to righteous, nor to sinful self; they do not live upon their duties and services; nor do they ascribe their life, righteousness, and salvation to them; nor do they live to their own lusts, or make provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof, and much less to the lusts and wills of others: and no man dieth to himself; every man dies, and must, or undergo a change equivalent to death; believers die as well as others, not eternally, or the second death, but corporeally, or a temporal death, but not to themselves; as they do not seek their own will and pleasure, and profit in life, so neither in death; they do not die to their own advantage only; death is gain unto them, it frees thema from all their sorrows, toil, and labours, and introduces them into the presence of Christ, and the enjoyment of everlasting happiness; but this is not all their death issues in, but also in the glory of Christ: moreover, no man has the power over life or death; as his life is not from himself, he has no power to lengthen or shorten it, nor to hinder or hasten death; this belongs to another Lord and master, whom life and death are both to subserve. This is an illustration of the above reason, by which the apostle confirms his advice. JAMISO , “For none of us — Christians liveth to himself — (See 2Co_5:14, 2Co_5:15), to dispose of himself or shape his conduct after his own ideas and inclinations. and no man — “and none” of us Christians “dieth to himself.”
- 76. CALVI , “7.Forno one of us, etc. He now CONFIRMS the former verse by an argument derived from the whole to a part, — that it is no matter of wonder that particular acts of our life should be referred to the Lord’ will, since life itself ought to be wholly spent to his glory; for then only is the life of a Christian rightly formed, when it has for its object the will of God. But if thou oughtest to refer whatever thou doest to his good pleasure, it is then an act of impiety to undertake anything whatever, which thou thinkest will displease him; nay, which thou art not persuaded will please him. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. BAR ES, “For whether we live - As long as we live. We live unto the Lord - We live to do his will, and to promote his glory. This is the grand purpose of the life of the Christian. Other people live to gratify themselves; the Christian to do those things which the Lord requires. By “the Lord” here the apostle evidently intends the Lord Jesus, as it is evident from Rom_14:9; and the truth taught here is, that it is the leading and grand purpose of the Christian to do honor to the Saviour. It is this which constitutes his special character, and which distinguishes him from other people. Whether we die - In the dying state, or in the state of the dead; in the future world. We are “no where” our own. In all conditions we are “his,” and bound to do his will. The connection of this declaration with the argument is this: Since we belong to another in every state, and are bound to do his will, we have no right to assume the prerogative of sitting in judgment on another. “We” are subjects, and are bound to do the will of Christ. All other Christians are subjects in like manner, and are answerable, not to us, but directly to the Lord Jesus, and should have the same liberty of conscience that we have. The passage proves also that the soul does not cease to be conscious at death. We are still the Lord’s; his even when the body is in the grave; and his in all the future world: see Rom_14:9. GILL, “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord,.... As natural, so spiritual life is derived from the Lord, and believers live by faith upon him, and according to his will revealed in the word; find to his honour and glory; at least they desire so to do: and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; resigning up life unto him, whenever it is his pleasure; magnifying of him, as by life, so by death; dying to be with him, to be raised again by him, and live with him for evermore; in the faith and hope of this, the believer both lives and dies, and so glorifies Christ both in life and death: hence this
- 77. conclusion follows, whether welive therefore or die, we are the Lord's; by the gift of the Father to him, by his own purchase, and the power of his grace, making them willing to give up themselves to him: and hence it is, that under a sense of this, that they are his, and not their own, nor another's, they do all they do for his glory; whether they observe, or not observe a day, it is to the Lord; whether they eat, or not eat things formerly forbidden, it is to him; and whether they live or die, it is to the Lord, whose they are: and hence also it is, that they are not to be despised and set at nought, or to be judged and censured by one another, since they belong to another master, who is their Lord, and will be their Judge. HE RY, “Our end and aim: not self, but the Lord. As the particular end specifies the action, so the general scope and tendency specify the state. if we would know what way we walk in, we must enquire what end we walk towards. First, Not to self. We have learned to deny ourselves; this was our first lesson: None of us liveth to himself. This is a thing in which all the people of God are one, however they differ in other things; though some are weak and others are strong, yet both agree in this, not to live to themselves. Not one that hath given up his name to Christ is allowedly a self-seeker; it is contrary to the foundation of true Christianity. We neither live to ourselves nor die to ourselves. We are not our own masters, nor our own proprietors - we are not at our own disposal. The business of our lives is not to please ourselves, but to please God. The business of our deaths, to which we are every day exposed and delivered, is not to make ourselves talked of; we run not such hazards out of vain-glory, while we are dying daily. When we come to die actually, neither is that to ourselves; it is not barely that we would be unclothed, and eased of the burden of the flesh, but it is to the Lord, that we may depart and be with Christ, may be present with the Lord. Secondly, But to the Lord (Rom_14:8), to the Lord Christ, to whom all power and judgment are committed, and in whose name we are taught, as Christians, to do every thing we do (Col_3:17), with an eye to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, Phi_1:21. Christ is the gain we aim at, living and dying. We live to glorify him in all the actions and affairs of life; we die, whether a natural or a violent death, to glorify him, and to go to be glorified with him. Christ is the centre, in which all the lines of life and death do meet. This is true Christianity, which makes Christ all in all. So that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's, devoted to him, depending on him, designed and designing for him. Though some Christians are weak and others strong, - though of different sizes, capacities, apprehensions, and practices, in minor things, yet they are all the Lord's - all eying, and serving, and approving themselves to Christ, and are accordingly owned and accepted of him. Is it for us then to judge or despise them, as if we were their masters, and they were to make it their business to please us, and to stand or fall by our dooms? JAMISO , “For whether we live, we live unto the Lord — the Lord Christ; see Rom_14:9. and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s — Nothing but the most vivid explanation of these remarkable words could make them endurable to any Christian ear, if Christ were a mere creature. For Christ is here - in the most emphatic terms, and yet in the most unimpassioned tone - held up as the supreme Object of the Christian’s life, and of his death too; and that by
- 78. the man whosehorror of creature worship was such, that when the poor Lycaonians would have worshipped him, he rushed forth to arrest the deed, directing them to “the living God,” as the only legitimate Object of worship (Act_14:15). Nor does Paul teach this here, but rather appeals to it as a known and recognized fact, of which he had only to remind his readers. And since the apostle, when he wrote these words, had never been at Rome, he could only know that the Roman Christians would assent to this view of Christ, because it was the common teaching of all the accredited preachers of Christianity, and the common faith of all Christians. Jesus is the one, never ending, never changing relationship. We are always his. We are the Lord’s; His all-sufficient merit, Sealed on the Cross, to us this grace accords; We are the Lord’s, and all things shall inherit; Whether we live or die we are the Lord’s. MACARTHUR The last phrase of verse 9 is one of the greatest injunctions to holy living in all the Bible: "We are the Lord's." Every Christian is subject to the unconditional sovereignty of God. We are the Lord's--we are His possession. First Corinthians 6:19-20 says, "Know ye not that ... ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price." I'm not my own, so I don't live to myself and I don't die to myself. I am His, so I live to Him and I'll die to Him. All believers have the same relationship to the Lord; we all serve the sovereign Lord we have embraced as our Redeemer. If we're weak and we limit ourselves to living a certain way, we do so because we believe we are pleasing Him. If we enjoy our freedom in Christ, we do so because we believe we are pleasing Him. Since those are matters of preference and not sin, let's not cause a rift in the church over them. Romans 14:8 brings much to bear on the issue of the lordship of Christ. A true Christian longs to submit to Christ's lordship. First Corinthians 15:23 includes this short phrase: "They that are Christ's." The greatest injunction to holy living is that we are the Lord's. We belong to Him, whether weak or strong. Some would have us believe that weak believers accept Jesus as their Savior, but not as their Lord. He may not yet understand all that his new life in Christ means, but he understands the basics of the Christian life--and nothing is more basic than the lordship of Christ in the believer's life. o one can tell me that I can have Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. In all the years I've known Christ, there has never been a time when I didn't sense a tremendous weight of responsibility to obey Him. Jesus is Lord. Scripture specifically states that Jesus died to be Lord (as opposed to Savior). It is hard for me to conceive how people believe someone can have Jesus as their Savior, yet not have any sense of submission to His lordship. Jesus died and rose that He might be Lord. The Greek verb kurieuo is translated here as "might be Lord." The noun form is kurios, the common word for Lord. Jesus died and rose to be Lord of both the living and the dead. The dead refer to saints already in glory. Christ died to reign over the saints in His presence and the saints still on earth. He has dominion
- 79. over all creationand a special mediatorial function on behalf of His own people (Heb. 2:17; 7:25). It is impossible to deny the lordship of Jesus Christ without denying His work on the cross. VALUE 1. The 1996 auction of the Jackie Kennedy Onassis estate was expected to bring in a total of $5 million, but the first night's take was $4.5 million. A worn footstool went for $33,350 and a silver tape measure sold for $48,875. The night's highest price was for a walnut tobacco humidor that had belonged to President Kennedy. It sold for $574,500. Many items auctioned were common; they became valuable because of whom they had belonged to. When we feel common and question our value, it's good to know that "... we belong to the Lord" (Rom. 14:8). CALVI , “8.To the Lord we live, etc. This does not mean the same as when it is said in Rom_6:11, that we are made alive unto God by his Spirit, but that we conform to his will and pleasure, and design all things to his glory. Nor are we only to live to the Lord, but also to die; that is, our death as well as our life is to be referred to his will. He adds the best of reasons, for whether we live or die, we are his: and it hence follows, that he has full authority over our life and our death. The application of this doctrine opens into a wide field. God thus claims authority over life and death, that his own condition might be borne by every one as a yoke laid on him; for it is but just that he should assign to every one his station and his course of life. And thus we are not only forbidden rashly to attempt this or that without God’ command, but we are also commanded to be patient under all troubles and losses. If at any time the flesh draws back in adversities, let it come to our minds, that he who is not free nor has authority over himself, perverts right and order if he depends not on the will of his lord. Thus also is taught us the rule by which we are to live and to die, so that if he extends our life in CONTINUAL sorrows and miseries, we are not yet to seek to depart before our time; but if he should suddenly call us hence in the flower of our age, we ought ever to be ready for our departure. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead
- 80. and the living. BARES, “For to this end - For this purpose or design. The apostle does not say that this was the “only” design of his death, but that it was a main purpose, or an object which he had distinctly in view. This declaration is introduced in order to confirm what he had said in the previous verse, that in all circumstances we are the Lord’s. This he shows by the fact that Jesus died “in order” that we “might” be his. And rose - This expression is rejected by most modern critics. It is wanting in many manuscripts, and has been probably introduced in the text from the margin. And revived - There is also a variation in the Greek in this place, but not so great as to change the sense materially. It refers to his “resurrection,” and means that he was “restored to life” in order that he might exercise dominion over the dead and the living. That he might be Lord - Greek. That he might “rule over.” The Greek word used here implies the idea of his being “proprietor” or “owner” as well as “ruler.” It means that he might exercise entire dominion over all, as the sovereign Lawgiver and Lord. Both of the dead - That is, of those who “are” deceased, or who have gone to another state of existence. This passage proves that those who die are not annihilated; that they do not cease to be conscious; and that they still are under the dominion of the Mediator. Though their bodies moulder in the grave, yet the spirit lives, and is under his control. And though the body dies and returns to its native dust, yet the Lord Jesus is still its Sovereign, and shall raise it up again: “God our Redeemer lives, And often from the skies. Looks down and watches all our dust, Till he shall bid it rise.” It gives an additional sacredness to the grave when we reflect that the tomb is under the watchful care of the Redeemer. Safe in his hands, the body may sink to its native dust with the assurance that in his own time he will again call it forth, with renovated and immortal powers, to be for ever subject to his will. With this view, we can leave our friends with confidence in his hands when they die, and yield our own bodies cheerfully to the dust when he shall call our spirits hence. But it is not only over the “body” that his dominion is established. This passage proves that the departed souls of the saints are still subject to him; compare Mat_22:32; Mar_12:27. He not only has “dominion” over those spirits, but he is their protector and Lord. They are safe under his universal dominion. And it does much to alleviate the pains of separation from pious, beloved friends, to reflect that they depart still to love and serve the same Saviour in perfect purity, and unvexed by infirmity and sin. Why should we wish to recall them from his perfect love in the heavens to the poor and imperfect service which they would render if in the land of the living? And living - To the redeemed, while they remain in this life. He died to “purchase” them to himself, that they might become his obedient subjects; and they are bound to yield obedience by all the sacredness and value of the price which he paid, even his own precious blood; compare 1Co_6:20, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s;” 1Co_7:23; Rev_14:4 (Greek, “bought”); 1Pe_2:9, (Greek, “purchased”). If it be asked how this “dominion over the
- 81. dead and theliving” is connected with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, we may reply, (1) That it is secured over Christians from the fact that they are “purchased” or “ransomed” by his precious blood; and that they are bound by this sacred consideration to live to him. This obligation every Christian feels 1Pe_1:18, and its force is continually resting on him. It was by the love of Christ that he was ever brought to love God at all; and his deepest and tenderest obligations to live to him arise from this source; 2Co_5:14- 15. (2) Jesus, by his death and resurrection, established a dominion over the grave. He destroyed him that had the power of death, Heb_2:14, and triumphed over him; Col_2:15. Satan is a humbled foe; and his sceptre over the grave is wrested from his hands. When Jesus rose, in spite of all the power of Satan and of people, he burst the bands of death, and made an invasion on the dominions of the dead, and showed that he had power to control all. (3) This dominion of the Lord Jesus is felt by the spirits on high. They are subject to him because he redeemed them; Rev_5:9. (4) It is often revealed in the Scriptures that “dominion” was to be given to the Lord Jesus as the reward of his sufferings and death; see the Joh_17:2, Joh_17:4-5; 5:26-29 notes; Phi_2:5-11 notes; Eph_1:20-21 notes; Heb_2:9-10; Heb_12:2 notes. The “extent” of his dominion as mediator is affirmed, in this place, only to be over the dead and the living; that is, over the human race. Other passages of the Scripture, however, seem to imply that it extends over all worlds. CLARKE, “Christ both died and rose - That we are not our own, but are the Lord’s both in life and death, is evident from this - that Christ lived, and died, and rose again, that he might be the Lord of the dead and the living; for his power extends equally over both worlds: separate, as well as embodied spirits, are under his authority; and he it is who is to raise even the dead to life: and thus all throughout eternity shall live under his dominion. The clause και ανεστη, and rose, is wanting in several reputable MSS., and certainly is not necessary to the text. Griesbach omits the words, and reads απεθανε και εζησεν, died and lived; of which Professor White says, lectio indubie genuina: “this reading is indisputably genuine.” GILL, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,.... This last word "revived" is omitted by the Vulgate Latin, but very naturally placed by the Syriac, between Christ's dying and rising. The Alexandrian copy reads, "died and lived": and the Ethiopic version, "died and revived": the end of all which was, that he might be the Lord both of the dead and living; that is, of believers, whether dead or alive; for though he is Lord of all, as God and Creator, yet his appearing to be Lord by his dying, rising, and living again, can only have respect to them, for whom dying he has abolished death, and destroyed Satan; whom he has redeemed from sin,
- 82. and delivered fromthis present evil world; and so having freed them from those other lords which had the dominion over them, shows himself to be their one and only Lord: and by rising again from the dead, ascending to heaven, and sitting at the right hand of God, all creatures and things being subject to him, he is made or declared both Lord and Christ; and living again, and continuing to live for ever, he appears to have the keys of hell and death; and will open the graves, and raise from thence, and judge both quick and dead, those that will be found alive at his coming, and such as he will cause to rise from the dead then; till which time, the apostle suggests, the decision of these differences about meats and days was to be left; and in the mean time the saints were to cultivate peace and love among themselves. HE RY, “The ground of this, Rom_14:9. It is grounded upon Christ's absolute sovereignty and dominion, which were the fruit and end of his death and resurrection. To this end he both died, and rose, and revived (he, having risen, entered upon a heavenly life, the glory which he had before) that he might be Lord both of dead and living - that he might be universal monarch, Lord of all (Act_10:36), all the animate and inanimate creatures; for he is head over all things to the church. He is Lord of those that are living to rule them, of those that are dead to receive them and raise them up. This was that name above every name which God gave him as the reward of his humiliation, Phi_2:8, Phi_2:9. It was after he had died and risen that he said, All power is given unto me (Mat_28:18), and presently he exerts that power in issuing out commissions, Rom_14:19, Rom_14:20. Now if Christ paid so dearly for his dominion over souls and consciences, and has such a just and undisputed right to exercise that dominion, we must not so much as seem to invade it, nor intrench upon it, by judging the consciences of our brethren, and arraigning them at our bar. When we are ready to reproach and reflect upon the name and memory of those that are dead and gone, and to pass a censure upon them (which some the rather do, because such judgments of the dead are more likely to pass uncontrolled and uncontradicted), we must consider that Christ is Lord of the dead, as well as of the living. If they are dead, they have already given up their account, and let that suffice. And this leads to another reason against judging and despising, JAMISO , “For to this end Christ both, etc. — The true reading here is, To this end Christ died and lived (“again”). that he might be Lord both of the dead and — “and of the” living — The grand object of His death was to acquire this absolute Lordship over His redeemed, both in their living and in their dying, as His of right. HAWKER 9-16, “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. (10) But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. (11) For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. (12) So then everyone of us shall give account of himself to God. (13) Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way. (14) I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (15) But if thy brother
- 83. be grieved withthy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (16) Let not then your good be evil spoken of: I cannot forego the pleasure it gives me, in calling the Reader’s attention to that sweet Scripture, which so blessedly speaks, of the great end and purpose of all Christ’s ministry upon earth, for his people. For to this end, (saith Paul,) Christ both died, and rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Precious Jesus! what proofs are here of thine unequalled love to thy Church? Thou art indeed, and justly so, the Lord of all; reigning in all, and through all the departments of nature, providence, grace, and glory. Eternal, Almighty, and Everlasting Monarch! Thy dead men shall live. Yea, thou wilt raise the dead in trespasses and sins, to the life of grace here: And, thou wilt raise the dead in Christ, to the life of glory hereafter. Blessed Jesus! And wilt thou not raise my soul now, during all the time-state of the Church, to be above all my dying frames and dead affections? Art thou not, Lord, risen and revived, that thou mightest be Lord both of dead and living ? Oh! for grace, daily to hear thy gracious and all-powerful voice saying : I am the resurrection and the life! he that believeth in me, though he where dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth, and believeth in me, shall never die! Joh_11:25-26. He was Lord of creation before, but by his death for man and his resurrection he became Lord of men, and all are under his authority, for he alone has the power to save them from death. He earned this right to be Lord by what he did for man. He could be Lord by sheer power, but it only became legitimate and authentic by his death and resurrection as a man. It is not imposed authority but won authority. He deserves it and has a right to demand and expect men to honor his authority. He won this right by the rules that God has established, and so did it, not by sovereign decree, but by sacrificial deeds. He was the servant of all men, and thus, gained the right to be the sovereign over all men. The servant is the best of all, and Jesus served all men on the highest level by his death and resurrection. He is Lord of all be they dead or alive. We are not to go back in time and judge the dead either, for they are also under his Lordship, and he alone is their judge. By dying all enter into his kingdom where he reigns supreme. Satan does not control the world of the dead, but Christ is Lord of all who die. CALVI , “9.For to this end Christ also died, etc. This is a CONFIRMATION of the reason which has been last mentioned; for in order to prove that we ought to live and to die to the Lord, he had said, that whether we live or die we are under the power of Christ. He now shows how rightly Christ claims this power over us, since he has obtained it by so great a price; for by undergoing death for our salvation, he has acquired authority over us which cannot be destroyed by death, and by rising again, he has received our whole life as his peculiar property. He has then by his death and resurrection deserved that we should, in death as well as in life, advance the glory of his name. The words arose and lived again mean, that by resurrection he attained a new state of life; and that as the life which he now possesses is SUBJECT to no change, his dominion over us is to be eternal.
- 84. 10You, then, whydo you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. BAR ES, “But why ... - Since we are all subjects and servants alike, and must all stand at the same tribunal, what right have we to sit in judgment on others? Thou judge - Thou who art a “Jewish” convert, why dost thou attempt to arraign the “Gentile” disciple, as if he had violated a law of God? compare Rom_14:3. Thy brother - God has recognised him as his friend Rom_14:3, and he should be regarded by thee as “a brother” in the same family. Or why dost thou set at nought - Despise Rom_14:3; why dost thou, who art a “Gentile” convert, despise the “Jewish” disciple as being unnecessarily scrupulous and superstitious? Thy brother - The Jewish convert is now a brother; and all the contempt which you Gentiles once cherished for the Jew should cease, from the fact that “he” is now “a Christian.” Nothing will do so much, on the one hand, to prevent a censorious disposition, and on the other, to prevent contempt for those who are in a different rank in life, as to remember that they are “Christians,” bought with the same blood, and going to the same heaven as ourselves. We must all stand ... - That is, we must all be tried alike at the same tribunal; we must answer for our conduct, not to our-fellow man, but to Christ; and it does not become us to sit in judgment on each other. CLARKE, “But why dost thou - Christian Jew, observing the rites of the Mosaic law, judge - condemn thy brother - the Christian Gentile, who does not think himself bound by this law? Or why dost thou - Christian Gentile, set at nought thy Christian Jewish brother, as if he were unworthy of thy regard, because he does not yet believe that the Gospel has set him free from the rites and ceremonies of the law? It is a true saying of Mr. Heylin, on this verse: The superstitious are prone to judge, and those who are not superstitious are prone to despise. We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ - Why should we then judge and condemn each other? We are accountable to God for our conduct, and shall be judged at his bar; and let us consider that whatever measure we mete, the same shall be measured unto us again.
- 85. GILL, “But whydost thou judge thy brother?.... These words are spoken to the man weak in faith, that scrupled eating of certain meats, and chose rather eat none, and live on herbs, and who esteemed one day above another; and was very apt to censure and condemn such as made use of their Christian liberty in these things, though they were brethren, not in a natural or civil, but in a spiritual relation: or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? these words, on the other hand, are directed to the stronger believer, who believed he might eat all things, and esteemed every day alike; being fully persuaded, that the distinction of meats and of days was now ceased; and such were apt to be puffed up with their superior knowledge and faith, and were ready to treat with an air of contempt those that were weak; showing little or no regard to their peace and edification, though they stood in the same relation to each other. The emphasis lies upon the word "brother", in both branches of the expostulation; and the force of the apostle's reasoning is that they should not judge or despise one another, because they were brethren, stood in the same relation to God and Christ, belonged to the same family, were partakers of the same grace, and had no pre-eminence one over another; they had but one master, and all they were brethren: and which he further enforces with the following reason or argument, for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ; at the last day, when he shall sit on his throne of glory, and all nations shall be gathered before him, and he shall pronounce and execute the decisive sentence on each of them: there is a particular, and a general judgment; a particular judgment at death, when the soul is immediately consigned to bliss or woe; and a general one in the end of time; which may be proved both from reason, as from the relation creatures stand in to God, from the inequality of things in this life, and the conscious fears of men with respect to a future one; and from divine revelation, Christ will be the Judge, he is so appointed by his Father, and is every way fit for it, being God omniscient and omnipotent; and when he shall appear in his glory, he shall sit on his judgment seat, the dead will be raised, the books will be opened, and all shall be summoned to appear before him, of every age and sex, of every rank and degree, and of every character, good or bad: here the saints are particularly designed, "we shall all stand"; whether ministers or private Christians, weak or strong believers; they that are apt to judge, and others that are too ready to despise; they shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ, who is sole Judge, and shall render to every man according to his works, and from whom they shall all receive their sentence. The allusion is to human courts of judicature, in which the judge sits upon a bench, and they that are tried stand before him; see 2Co_5:10. The Alexandrian copy reads, "the judgment seat of God". HE RY, “Because both the one and the other must shortly give an account, Rom_14:10-12. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day would silence all these rash judgings: Why dost thou that art weak judge thy brother that is strong? And why dost thou that art strong set at nought thy brother that is weak? Why is all this clashing, and contradicting, and censuring, among Christians? We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, 2Co_5:10. Christ will be the judge, and he has both authority and ability to determine men's eternal state according to their works, and before him we shall stand as persons to be tried, and to give up an account, expecting our final doom from him, which will be eternally conclusive. To illustrate this (Rom_14:11), he quotes a passage out of the Old Testament, which speaks of Christ's universal
- 86. sovereignty and dominion,and that established with an oath: As I live (saith the Lord), every knee shall bow to me. It is quoted from Isa_45:23. There it is, I have sworn by myself; here it is, As I live. So that whenever God saith As I live, it is to be interpreted as swearing by himself; for it is God's prerogative to have life in himself: there is a further ratification of it there, The word is gone out of my mouth. It is a prophecy, in general, of Christ's dominion; and here very fully applied to the judgment of the great day, which will be the highest and most illustrious exercise of that dominion. Here is a proof of Christ's Godhead: he is the Lord and he is God, equal with the Father. Divine honour is due to him, and must be paid. It is paid to God through him as Mediator. God will judge the world by him, Act_17:31. The bowing of the knee to him, and the confession made with the tongue, are but outward expressions of inward adoration and praise. Every knee and every tongue, either freely or by force. JAMISO , “But why, etc. — The original is more lively: - “But thou (the weaker believer), why judgest thou thy brother? And thou again (the stronger), why despisest thou thy brother?” for we shall all — the strong and the weak together. stand before the judgment-seat of Christ — All the most ancient and best manuscripts read here, “the judgment-seat of God.” The present reading doubtless crept in from 2Co_5:10, where “the judgment-seat of Christ” occurs. But here “the judgment- seat of God” seems to have been used, with reference to the quotation and the inference in Rom_14:11, Rom_14:12. Jesus alone has the right to judge, and so why are you acting like the Master and playing God? We are all in the same boat, and we are the judged and not the judge. Calvin writes, “If the Lord has ordained among us a society of brother, equality must be observed. Anyone, therefore, who assumes the part of a judge is behaving insolently.” "This is the bema seat, equivalent to the judge's seat in the Olympic Games. After each game, the winners came before the judge's seat to receive crowns for first, second and third places. Likewise, the Christian's works will be tested by fire, and he'll be rewarded for those which remain. . . . The judgment seat of Christ is only concerned with a Christian's rewards and position in the kingdom, not with his salvation." (Smith) One accused prisoner does not accuse the other, but all stand before the judge. Luther writes, “ otice the, with what thunderbolts he frightens us away from despising one another and especially the weak!” We do not have authority over one another, and each has only to answer to God. STEDMA So Paul says, "Stop trying to take his place. Stop trying to be Christ to the rest of the church or playing God to each other. You, the weak, why do you judge your brother? And you, the strong, why do you look down on your brother? It is wrong. You are trying to take Christ's place when you do that. But remember that all of us,
- 87. men and womenalike, all brothers and sisters together, must individually stand before God's judgment seat." MACARTHUR "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ [God]." The Greek text says "God" [theou] not "Christ." It is in 2 Corinthians 5:10 where it is called the judgment seat of Christ. Those two verses are more evidence of the deity of Christ because He is spoken of interchangeably with God. First Corinthians 3:12-13 says that when we stand before the judgment seat our works will be put on display, whether gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or stubble. First Corinthians 4:5 says the Lord "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God." b) All will bow in judgment (v. 11) "It is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." That is a quote from Isaiah 45:23. Paul used a portion of that same verse in Philippians 2:10-11. Every one of us at one point in the future will bow before the judgment of God. When we judge others, we are playing God--and that's a blasphemous thing to do. CALVI , “10.But thou, why dost thou, etc. As he had made the life and death of us all subject to Christ, he now PROCEEDS to mention the authority to judge, which the Father has conferred on him, together with the dominion over heaven and earth. He hence concludes, that it is an unreasonable boldness in any one to assume the power to judge his brother, since by taking such a liberty he robs Christ the Lord of the power which he alone has received from the Father. But first, by the term brother, he CHECKS this lust for judging; for since the Lord has established among us the right of a fraternal alliance, an equality ought to be preserved; every one then who assumes the character of a judge acts unreasonably. Secondly, he calls us before the only true judge, from whom no one can take away his power, and whose tribunal none can escape. As then it would be absurd among men for a criminal, who ought to occupy a humble place in the court, to ascend the tribunal of the judge; so it is absurd for a Christian to take to himself the liberty of judging the conscience of his brother. A similar argument is mentioned by James, when he says, that “ who judges his brother, judges the law,” and that “ who judges the law, is not an observer of the law but a president;” and, on the other hand, he says, that “ is but one lawgiver, who can save and destroy.” (Jas_4:12.) He has ascribed tribunal to Christ, which means his power to judge, as the voice of the archangel, by which we shall be summoned, is called, in another place, a trumpet; for it will pierce, as it were with its sound, into the minds and ears of all.(423)
- 88. (423) The words“ shall all stand,” etc., may be rendered, “ must all stand,” etc. It is indeed the future tense, but this is ACCORDING to what is often the case in Hebrew, for in that language the future has frequently this meaning. Rom_13:12 may be rendered in the same manner, “ then every one of us must give ACCOUNT of himself to God.” — Ed. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "[a] BAR ES, “For it is written - This passage is recorded in Isa_45:23. It is not quoted literally, but the sense is preserved. In Isaiah there can be no doubt that it refers to Yahweh. The speaker expressly calls himself Yahweh, the name which is appropriate to God alone, and which is never applied to a creature; Rom_14:18. In the place before us, the words are applied by Paul expressly to Christ; compare Rom_14:10. This mode of quotation is a strong incidental proof that the apostle regarded the Lord Jesus as divine. On no other principle could he have made these quotations. As I live - The Hebrew is, “I have sworn by myself.” One expression is equivalent to the other. An “oath” of God is often expressed by the phrase “as I live;” Num_14:21; Isa_49:18; Eze_5:11; Eze_14:16, etc. Saith the Lord - These words are not in the Hebrew text, but are added by the apostle to show that the passage quoted was spoken by the Lord, the Messiah; compare Isa_45:18, Isa_45:22. Every knee shall bow to me - To bow the knee” is an act expressing homage, submission, or adoration. It means that every person shall acknowledge him as God, and admit his right to universal dominion. The passage in Isaiah refers particularly to the homage which “his own people” should render to him; or rather, it means that all who are saved shall acknowledge “him” as their God and Saviour. The original reference was not to “all men,” but only to those who should be saved; Isa_45:17, Isa_45:21-22, Isa_45:24. In this sense the apostle uses it; not as denoting that “all men” should confess to God, but that all “Christians,” whether Jewish or Gentile converts, should alike give account to Him. “They” should all bow before their common God, and acknowledge “his” dominion over them. The passage originally did not refer particularly to the day of judgment, but expressed the truth that all believers should acknowledge his dominion. It is as applicable, however, to the judgment, as to any other act of homage which his people will render. Every tongue shall confess to God - In the Hebrew, “Every tongue shall swear.” Not swear “by God,” but “to him;” that is, pay to him our vows, or “answer to him on oath” for our conduct; and this is the same as confessing to him, or acknowledging him
- 89. as our Judge. GILL,“For it is written,.... In Isa_45:23; though Justin Martyr (o) cites a like passage with what follows, as out of Ezekiel 37, but no such words appear there, either in the Hebrew text, or Septuagint version: as I live, saith the Lord; the form of an oath used often by the Lord; who because he could swear by no greater, he swore by himself, by his own life; signifying, that what he was about to say, would as surely come to pass, as that he lived; and in the original text in Isaiah it is, "I have sworn by myself"; which being generally expressed, the apostle, perfectly agreeable to the meaning of it, gives the particular form of oath he swore, as in Isa_49:18; every knee shall bow to me; which is not to be understood literally of bowing of the knee at the name of Jesus, which has no foundation in this, nor in any other passage of Scripture, but figuratively, of the subjection of all creatures to Christ, both voluntary and involuntary. The Complutensian edition adds, "of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth", as in Phi_2:10, from whence these words seem to be taken: and every tongue shall confess to God; that is, everyone that has a tongue, every man, be he who he will, a good or a bad man, shall own at the last day, that Christ is God and Lord of all; see Phi_2:10. It may be asked, how this passage appears to be a proof of what the apostle had asserted, for which purpose it seems to be cited, since here is nothing said of Christ, nor of his judgment seat, nor of all standing before it? to which may be returned, that it is clear from the context in the prophet, that the Messiah is the person speaking, who is said to be a just God and Saviour; and is represented as calling upon, and encouraging all sorts of persons to look to him for salvation; and as he in whom the church expected righteousness and strength, and in whom all the seed of Israel shall be justified, and shall glory; and which the Chaldee paraphrase all along interprets of דיי ,מימרא "the Word of the Lord"; the essential Word of God, the true Messiah: moreover, the bowing of the knee, and swearing, or confessing, to him, relate to his lordship and dominion over all; and suppose him as sitting on his throne of glory, as Lord of all, or as a judge on his judgment seat, in a court of judicature, where such like actions as here mentioned are performed; and whereas every knee is to bow, and every tongue to confess to him, which include all mankind, it follows then, that all the saints shall stand before him, bow unto him, own him as their Lord, and be judged by him. Kimchi says (p), that this shall be הימים ,באחרת "in the last days": and which the apostle rightly refers to the day of the general judgment. This place affords a considerable proof of Christ's true and proper deity, being in the prophet styled "Jehovah", and by the apostle "God"; and such things being ascribed to him, as swearing by himself, which no creature may do, and the subjection and confession of all creatures to him, whether they will or not. JAMISO , “For it is written — (Isa_45:23).
- 90. As I live,saith the Lord — Hebrew, Jehovah. every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God — consequently, shall bow to the award of God upon their character and actions. CALVI , “11.As I live, etc. He seems to me to have quoted this testimony of the Prophet, not so much to prove what he had said of the judgment-seat of Christ, which was not doubted among Christians, as to show that judgment ought to be looked for by all with the greatest humility and lowliness of mind; and this is what the words import. He had first then testified by his own words, that the power to judge all men is vested in Christ alone; he now demonstrates by the words of the Prophet, that all flesh ought to be humbled while expecting that judgment; and this is expressed by the bending of the knee. But though in this passage of the Prophet the Lord in general foreshows that his glory should be known among all nations, and that his majesty should everywhere shine forth, which was then hid among very few, and as it were in an obscure corner of the world; yet if we examine it more closely, it will be evident that its complete fulfillment is not now taking place, nor has it ever taken place, nor is it to be hoped for in future ages. God does not now rule otherwise in the world than by his gospel; nor is his majesty otherwise rightly honored but when it is adored as known from his word. But the word of God has ever had its enemies, who have been perversely resisting it, and its despisers, who have ever treated it with ridicule, as though it were absurd and fabulous. Even at this day there are many such, and ever will be. It hence appears, that this prophecy is indeed begun to be fulfilled in this life, but is far from being completed, and will not be so until the day of the last resurrection shall shine forth, when Christ’ enemies shall be laid prostrate, that they may become his footstool. But this cannot be except the Lord shall ascend his tribunal: he has therefore suitably APPLIED this testimony to the judgment-seat of Christ. This is also a remarkable passage for the purpose of CONFIRMING our faith in the eternal divinity of Christ: for it is God who speaks here, and the God who has once for all declared, that he will not give his glory to another. (Isa_42:8.) Now if what he claims here to himself alone is accomplished in Christ, then doubtless he in Christ manifests himself And unquestionably the truth of this prophecy then OPENLY appeared, when Christ gathered a people to himself from the whole world, and restored them to the worship of his majesty and to the obedience of his gospel. To this purpose are the words of Paul, when he says that God gave a name to his Christ, at which every knee should bow, (Phi_2:10 :) and it shall then still more fully appear, when he shall ascend his tribunal to judge the living and the dead; for all judgment in heaven and on earth has been given to him by the Father. The words of the Prophet are, “ tongue shall swear to me:” but as an oath is a kind of divine worship, the word which Paul uses, shall confess, does not vary in sense: (424) for the Lord intended simply to declare, that all men should not only acknowledge his majesty, but also make a confession of obedience, both by the mouth and by the external gesture of the body, which he has designated by the bowing of the knee. (424) The passage is from Isa_45:23. In two instances the Apostle gives the sense, and not the words. Instead of “ myself have I sworn,” he give the form of the oath, “As I live.” This is the manner in which God swears by himself, it is by his life — his eternal EXISTENCE . Then the conclusion of the verse in Hebrew is, “ tongue shall swear,” that is, “ me.” To swear to God or by his name is to avow allegiance to him, to profess or to confess his name. See Psa_63:11; Isa_63:1; Zep_1:5. The Apostle therefore does no more than interpret the Hebrew idiom when he says, “ tongue shall confess to God.” — Ed.
- 91. 12So then, eachof us will give an account of himself to God. BAR ES, “So then - Wherefore; or according to the doctrine of the Old Testament. Every one of us - That is, every Christian; for the connection requires us to understand the argument only of Christians. At the same time it is a truth abundantly revealed elsewhere, that “all men” shall give account of their conduct to God; 2Co_5:10; Matt. 25; Ecc_12:14. Give account of himself - That is, of his character and conduct; his words and actions; his plans and purposes. In the fearful arraignment of that day every work and purpose shall be brought forth, and tried by the unerring standard of justice. As we shall be called to so fearful an account with God, we should not be engaged in condemning our brethren, but should examine whether we are prepared to give up our account with joy, and not with grief. To God - The judgment will be conducted by the Lord Jesus; Mat. 25:31-46; Act_17:31. All judgment is committed to the Son; Joh_5:22, Joh_5:27. Still we may be said to give account to God, (1) Because He “appointed” the Messiah to be the Judge Act_17:31; and, (2) Because the Judge himself is divine. The Lord Jesus being God as well as man, the account will be rendered directly to the Creator as well as the Redeemer of the world. In this passage there are “two” incidental proofs of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. “First,” the fact that the apostle applies to him language which in the prophecy is expressly spoken by “Yahweh;” and, “Secondly,” the fact that Jesus is declared to be the Judge of all. No being that is not “omniscient” can be qualified to judge the secrets of all people. None who has not “seen” human purposes at all times, and in all places; who has not been a witness of the conduct by day and by night; who has not been present with all the race at all times, and who in the great day cannot discern the true character of the soul, can be qualified to conduct the general judgment. Yet none can possess these qualifications but God. The Lord Jesus, “the judge of quick and dead” 2Ti_4:1, is therefore divine. CLARKE, “Every one of us shall give account of himself - We shall not, at the bar of God, be obliged to account for the conduct of each other - each shall give account of himself: and let him take heed that he be prepared to give up his accounts with joy.
- 92. GILL, “So theneveryone of us,.... this is the conclusion, drawn from the foregoing account of things, that there will be a general judgment, that Christ will be Judge, and all must appear at his bar; from whence it necessarily follows, that every man, and so every Christian, strong or weak, whatever may be his gifts, talents, and abilities, shall give an account of himself to God; that is, to Christ, who is God; which is another proof of his deity, for he will be the Judge, the Father will judge no man; it is before his judgment seat all shall stand; and therefore the account must be given to him by every one, of himself, and not another; of all his thoughts, words, and deeds, which will be all brought into judgment; and of his time and talents, how they have been spent and used; and of all his gifts of nature, providence, and grace, how they have been exercised for the glory of God, his own good, and the good of others: the formal manner in which this will be done is unknown unto us; however, this is certain, that the saints will have upon this reckoning, in what sort soever it may be, a full and open discharge, through the blood and righteousness of Christ. The Jews (q), say, in much such language as the apostle does, that "when a man removes out of this world, then למאריה חושבנאיהיב , "he gives an account to his Lord", of all that he has done in the world.'' HE RY, “Because both the one and the other must shortly give an account, Rom_14:10-12. A believing regard to the judgment of the great day would silence all these rash judgings: Why dost thou that art weak judge thy brother that is strong? And why dost thou that art strong set at nought thy brother that is weak? Why is all this clashing, and contradicting, and censuring, among Christians? We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, 2Co_5:10. Christ will be the judge, and he has both authority and ability to determine men's eternal state according to their works, and before him we shall stand as persons to be tried, and to give up an account, expecting our final doom from him, which will be eternally conclusive. To illustrate this (Rom_14:11), he quotes a passage out of the Old Testament, which speaks of Christ's universal sovereignty and dominion, and that established with an oath: As I live (saith the Lord), every knee shall bow to me. It is quoted from Isa_45:23. There it is, I have sworn by myself; here it is, As I live. So that whenever God saith As I live, it is to be interpreted as swearing by himself; for it is God's prerogative to have life in himself: there is a further ratification of it there, The word is gone out of my mouth. It is a prophecy, in general, of Christ's dominion; and here very fully applied to the judgment of the great day, which will be the highest and most illustrious exercise of that dominion. Here is a proof of Christ's Godhead: he is the Lord and he is God, equal with the Father. Divine honour is due to him, and must be paid. It is paid to God through him as Mediator. God will judge the world by him, Act_17:31. The bowing of the knee to him, and the confession made with the tongue, are but outward expressions of inward adoration and praise. Every knee and every tongue, either freely or by force. [1.] All his friends do it freely, are made willing in the day of his power. Grace is the soul's cheerful, entire, and avowed subjection to Jesus Christ. First, Bowing to him - the understanding bowed to his truths, the will to his laws, the whole man to his authority;
- 93. and this expressedby the bowing of the knee, the posture of adoration and prayer. It is proclaimed before our Joseph, Bow the knee, Gen_41:43. Though bodily exercise alone profits little, yet, as it is guided by inward fear and reverence, it is accepted. Secondly, Confessing to him - acknowledging his glory, grace, and greatness - acknowledging our own meanness and vileness, confessing our sins to him; so some understand it. [2.] All his foes shall be constrained to do it, whether they will or no. When he shall come in the clouds, and every eye shall see him, then, and not till then, will all those promises which speak of his victories over his enemies and their subjection to him have their full and complete accomplishment; then his foes shall be his footstool, and all his enemies shall lick the dust. hence he concludes (Rom_14:12), Every one of us shall give account of himself to God. We must not give account for others, nor they for us; but every one for himself. We must give account how we have spent our time, how we have improved our opportunities, what we have done and how we have done it. And therefore, First, We have little to do to judge others, for they are not accountable to us, nor are we accountable for them (Gal_2:6): Whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person. Whatever they are, and whatever they do, they must give account to their own master, and not to us; if we can in any thing be helpers of their joy, it is well; but we have not dominion over their faith. And, Secondly, We have the more to do to judge ourselves. We have an account of our own to make up, and that is enough for us; let every man prove his own work (Gal_6:4), state his own accounts, search his own heart and life; let this take up his thoughts, and he that is strict in judging himself and abasing himself will not be apt to judge and despise his brother. let all these differences be referred to the arbitration of Christ at the great day. JAMISO , “So then — infers the apostle. every one of us shall give account of himself to God — Now, if it be remembered that all this is adduced quite incidentally, to show that Christ is the absolute Master of all Christians, to rule their judgments and feelings towards each other while “living,” and to dispose of them “dying,” the testimony which it bears to the absolute Divinity of Christ will appear remarkable. On any other view, the quotation to show that we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God would be a strange proof that Christians are all amenable to Christ. ot an account of your brother or sister in Christ, or your pagan friends, but of yourself. Get your own life in order and do not spend so much time trying to get others in line. You answer for yourself. Imagine standing before God giving him an honest evaluation of just how you lived to do his will and please him. God will not seek from you how you feel about someone else’s life. God will want from us a statement on how we have treated others who differ from us, and this means there will be some terribly embarrassed believers before God. Those who have given their lives to being critics of others will not be very comfortable when it is their turn. Those who have acted like the famous Greek mythology bandit Procrustes will be sweating as they wait. He had the idea that all people would be better off if they were the same size, and so he had his bed on which he would stretch short people to make them the right length, and cut off the legs of long people to make them fit his bed. Those who think all people should be the same are opposing the very plan of God for variety in man.
- 94. James says thatteachers will be judged more severely in James 3:1. Accountability Romans 14:10-12 It seems that in our society the idea of reaching the point where you have to answer to no one has been elevated to a place in the "American Dream". Be your own boss! Sounds good doesn't it? But unaccountability is not only unwise, it is unbiblical. I. Accountability to God is Inescapable. A. We will be held accountable for our actions. 1. Every one of us shall give account to God. 2. There will be no exceptions. 3. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God. B. We will be held accountable for our words. 1. Mt. 12:35-36 2. Every idle word...by thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. II. Accountability to Spiritual Leaders is ecessary A. ote: 1Co. 16:15-16 1. Paul called on the brethren in Corinth to submit themselves to those who had given themselves to ministry. 2. There is where many have a problem with accountability. 3. It is one thing to submit to an all- powerful, all-knowing, all-wise God, but it is quite another thing to submit to human leadership in the church. B. ote: Hebrews 13:17 1. As believers we are not individual islands in a vast sea of Christianity. 2. We are members of the body of Christ, the local church. 3. As such we come under the authority of the local congregation and its leadership. III. Accountability to One Another is Healthy. A. We need each other.
- 95. 1. Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 2.When one member of the body is weak, the stronger members should be there to build them up and encourage them. B. ote: Romans 15:1-2 C. ote: Galatians 6:1-2 1. These verses remind us that we have a responsibility to one another. 2. It is beneficial to the whole body when each member submits to one another in the right spirit. For accountability to work, we must cultivate the skill of listening to the advice of others. And although some advice needs to be taken with a grain of salt, no advice is totally worthless. CALVI , “12.Every one of us, etc. This conclusion invites us to humility and lowliness of mind: and hence he immediately draws this inference, — that we are not to judge one another; for it is not lawful for us to usurp the office of judging, who must ourselves submit to be judged and to give AN ACCOUNT . From the various significations of the word to judge, he has aptly drawn two different meanings. In the first place he forbids us to judge, that is, to condemn; in the second place he bids us to judge, that is, to exercise judgment, so as not to give offense. He indeed indirectly reproves those malignant censors, who EMPLOY all their acuteness in finding out something faulty in the life of their brethren: he therefore bids them to exercise wariness themselves; for by their neglect they often precipitate, or drive their brethren against some stumblingblock or another. (425) (425) The two words , πρόσκοµµα and σκάνδαλον mean nearly the same thing, but with this difference, that the first seems to be an hindrance or an obstacle which occasions stumbling or falling, and the other is an obstacle which stops or impedes progress in the way. See Mat_16:23. The two parties, the strong and the weak, are here evidently ADDRESSED ; the former was not, by eating, to put a stumblingblock in the way of the weak brother; nor was the weak, by condemning, to be a hindrance or impediment in the way of the strong so as to prevent him to advance in his course. Thus we see that forbearance is enjoined on both parties, though the Apostle afterwards dwells more on what the strong was to do. The clause might be thus rendered, — “ rather judge it right to do this, — not to lay before a brother a stumbling-stone, or an impediment.” — Ed. MACLARE , “THE LIMITS OF LIBERTY The special case in view, in the section of which this passage is part, is the difference of opinion as to the lawfulness of eating certain meats. It is of little consequence, so far as the principles involved are concerned, whether these were the food which the Mosaic
- 96. ordinances made unclean,or, as in Corinth, meats offered to idols. The latter is the more probable, and would be the more important in Rome. The two opinions on the point represented two tendencies of mind, which always exist; one more scrupulous, and one more liberal. Paul has been giving the former class the lesson they needed in the former part of this chapter; and he now turns to the ‘stronger’ brethren, and lays down the law for their conduct. We may, perhaps, best simply follow him, verse by verse. We note then, first, the great thought with which he starts, that of the final judgment, in which each man shall give account of himself. What has that to do with the question in hand? This, that it ought to keep us from premature and censorious judging. We have something more pressing to do than to criticise each other. Ourselves are enough to keep our hands full, without taking a lift of our fellows’ conduct. And this, further, that, in view of the final judgment, we should hold a preliminary investigation on our own principles of action, and ‘decide’ to adopt as the overruling law for ourselves, that we shall do nothing which will make duty harder for our brethren. Paul habitually settled small matters on large principles, and brought the solemnities of the final account to bear on the marketplace and the meal. In Rom_14:13 he lays down the supreme principle for settling the case in hand. No Christian is blameless if he voluntarily acts so as to lay a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in another’s path. Are these two things the same? Possibly, but a man may stumble, and not fall, and that which makes him stumble may possibly indicate a temptation to a less grave evil than that which makes him fall does. It may be noticed that in the sequel we hear of a brother’s being ‘grieved’ first, and then of his being ‘overthrown.’ In any case, there is no mistake about the principle laid down and repeated in Rom_14:21. It is a hard saying for some of us. Is my liberty to be restricted by the narrow scruples of ‘strait-laced’ Christians? Yes. Does not that make them masters, and attach too much importance to their narrowness? No. It recognises Christ as Master, and all His servants as brethren. If the scrupulous ones go so far as to say to the more liberal, ‘You cannot be Christians if you do not do as we do’ then the limits of concession have been reached, and we are to do as Paul did, when he flatly refused to yield one hair’s- breadth to the Judaisers. If a man says, You must adopt this, that, or the other limitation in conduct, or else you shall be unchurched, the only answer is, I will not. We are to be flexible as long as possible, and let weak brethren’s scruples restrain our action. But if they insist on things indifferent as essential, a yet higher duty than that of regard to their weak consciences comes in, and faithfulness to Christ limits concession to His servants. But, short of that extreme case, Paul lays down the law of curbing liberty in deference to ‘narrowness.’ In Rom_14:14 he states with equal breadth the extreme principle of the liberal party, that nothing is unclean of itself. He has learned that ‘in the Lord Jesus.’ Before he was ‘in Him,’ he had been entangled in cobwebs of legal cleanness and uncleanness; but now he is free. But he adds an exception, which must be kept in mind by the liberal-minded section-namely, that a clean thing is unclean to a man who thinks it is. Of course, these principles do not affect the eternal distinctions of right and wrong. Paul is not playing fast and loose with the solemn, divine law which makes sin and righteousness independent of men’s notions. He is speaking of things indifferent- ceremonial observances and the like; and the modern analogies of these are conventional pieces of conduct, in regard to amusements and the like, which, in themselves, a Christian man can do or abstain from without sin. Rom_14:15 is difficult to understand, if the ‘for’ at the beginning is taken strictly. Some commentators would read instead of it a simple ‘but’ which smooths the flow of thought. But possibly the verse assigns a reason for the law in Rom_14:13, rather than for the
- 97. statements in Rom_14:14.And surely there is no stronger reason for tender consideration for even the narrowest scruples of Christians than the obligation to walk in love. Our common brotherhood binds us to do nothing that would even grieve one of the family. For instance, Christian men have different views of the obligations of Sunday observance. It is conceivable that a very ‘broad’ Christian might see no harm in playing lawn-tennis in his garden on a Sunday; but if his doing so scandalised, or, as Paul says, ‘grieved’ Christian people of less advanced views, he would be sinning against the law of love if he did it. There are many other applications of the principle readily suggested. The principle is the thing to keep clearly in view. It has a wide field for its exercise in our times, and when the Christian brotherhood includes such diversities of culture and social condition. And that is a solemn deepening of it, ‘Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.’ Note the almost bitter emphasis on ‘thy,’ which brings out not only the smallness of the gratification for which the mischief is done, but the selfishness of the man who will not yield up so small a thing to shield from evil which may prove fatal, a brother for whom Christ did not shrink from yielding up life. If He is our pattern, any sacrifice of tastes and liberties for our brother’s sake is plain duty, and cannot be neglected without selfish sin. One great reason, then, for the conduct enjoined, is set forth in Rom_14:15. It is the clear dictate of Christian love. Another reason is urged in Rom_14:16-18. It displays the true character of Christianity, and so reflects honour on the doer. ‘Your good’ is an expression for the whole sum of the blessings obtained by becoming Christians, and is closely connected with what is here meant by the ‘kingdom of God.’ That latter phrase seems here to be substantially equivalent to the inward condition in which they are who have submitted to the dominion of the will of God. It is ‘the kingdom within us’ which is ‘righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’ What have you won by your Christianity? the Apostle in effect says, Do you think that its purpose is mainly to give you greater licence in regard to these matters in question? If the most obvious thing in your conduct is your ‘eating and drinking,’ your whole Christian standing will be misconceived, and men will fancy that your religion permits laxity of life. But if, on the other hand, you show that you are Christ’s servants by righteousness, peace, and joy, you will be pleasing to God, and men will recognise that your religion is from Him, and that you are consistent professors of it. Modern liberal-minded brethren can easily translate all this for to-day’s use. Take care that you do not give the impression that your Christianity has its main operation in permitting you to do what your weaker brethren have scruples about. If you do not yield to them, but flaunt your liberty in their and the world’s faces, your advanced enlightenment will be taken by rough-and-ready observers as mainly cherished because it procures you these immunities. Show by your life that you have the true spiritual gifts. Think more about them than about your ‘breadth,’ and superiority to ‘narrow prejudices.’ Realise the purpose of the Gospel as concerns your own moral perfecting, and the questions in hand will fall into their right place. In Rom_14:19 two more reasons are given for restricting liberty in deference to others’ scruples. Such conduct contributes to peace. If truth is imperilled, or Christ’s name in danger of being tarnished, counsels of peace are counsels of treachery; but there are not many things worth buying at the price of Christian concord. Such conduct tends to build up our own and others’ Christian character. Concessions to the ‘weak’ may help them to become strong, but flying in the face of their scruples is sure to hurt them, in one way or another. In Rom_14:15, the case was supposed of a brother’s being grieved by what he felt to be
- 98. laxity. That casecorresponded to the stumbling-block of Rom_14:13. A worse result seems contemplated in Rom_14:20,-that of the weak brother, still believing that laxity was wrong, and yet being tempted by the example of the stronger to indulge in it. In that event, the responsibility of overthrowing what God had built lies at the door of the tempter. The metaphor of ‘overthrowing’ is suggested by the previous one of ‘edifying.’ Christian duty is mutual building up of character; inconsiderate exercise of ‘liberty’ may lead to pulling down, by inducing to imitation which conscience condemns. From this point onwards, the Apostle first reiterates in inverse order his two broad principles, that clean things are unclean to the man who thinks them so, and that Christian obligation requires abstinence from permitted things if our indulgence tends to a brother’s hurt. The application of the latter principle to the duty of total abstinence from intoxicants for the sake of others is perfectly legitimate, but it is an application, not the direct purpose of the Apostle’s injunctions. In Rom_14:22-23, the section is closed by two exhortations, in which both parties, the strong and the weak, are addressed. The former is spoken to in Rom_14:22, the latter in Rom_14:23. The strong brother is bid to be content with having his wider views, or ‘faith’-that is, certainty that his liberty is in accordance with Christ’s will. It is enough that he should enjoy that conviction, only let him make sure that he can hold it as in God’s sight, and do not let him flourish it in the faces of brethren whom it would grieve, or might lead to imitating his practice, without having risen to his conviction. And let him be quite sure that his conscience is entirely convinced, and not bribed by inclination; for many a man condemns himself by letting wishes dictate to conscience. On the other hand, there is a danger that those who have scruples should, by the example of those who have not, be tempted to do what they are not quite sure is right. If you have any doubts, says Paul, the safe course is to abstain from the conduct in question. Perhaps a brother can go to the theatre without harm, if he believes it right to do so; but if you have any hesitation as to the propriety of going, you will be condemned as sinning if you do. You must not measure your corn by another man’s bushel. Your convictions, not his, are to be your guides. ‘Faith’ is used here in a somewhat unusual sense. It means certitude of judgment. The last words of Rom_14:23 have no such meaning as is sometimes extracted from them; namely, that actions, however pure and good, done by unbelievers, are of the nature of sin. They simply mean that whatever a Christian man does without clear warrant of his judgment and conscience is sin to him, whatever it is to others. 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.
- 99. BAR ES, “Letus not therefore judge ... - Since we are to give account of ourselves at the same tribunal; since we must be there on the same “level,” let us not suppose that we have a right here to sit in judgment on our fellow-Christians. But judge this rather - If disposed to “judge,” let us be employed in a better kind of judging; let us come “to a determination” not to injure the cause of Christ. This is an instance of the happy “turn” which the apostle would give to a discussion. Some people have an irresistible propensity to sit in judgment, to pronounce opinions. Let them make good use of that. It will be well to exercise it on what can do no injury, and which may turn to good account. Instead of forming a judgment about “others,” let the man form a determination about his own conduct. That no man ... - A “stumbling-block” literally means anything laid in a man’s path, over which he may fall. In the Scriptures, however, the word is used commonly in a figurative sense to denote anything which shall cause him to “sin,” as sin is often represented by “falling;” see the note at Mat_5:29. And the passage means that we should resolve to act so as not “by any means” to be the occasion of leading our brethren into sin, either by our example, or by a severe and harsh judgment, provoking them to anger, or exciting jealousies, and envyings, and suspicions. No better rule than this could be given to promote peace. If every Christian, instead of judging his brethren severely, would resolve that “he” would so live as to promote peace, and so as not to lead others into sin, it would tend more, perhaps, than any other thing to advance the harmony and purity of the church of Christ. CLARKE, “Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more - Let us abandon such rash conduct; it is dangerous, it is uncharitable: judgment belongs to the Lord, and he will condemn those only who should not be acquitted. That no man put a stumbling block - Let both the converted Jew and Gentile consider that they should labor to promote each other’s spiritual interests, and not be a means of hindering each other in their Christian course; or of causing them to abandon the Gospel, on which, and not on questions of rites and ceremonies, the salvation of their soul depends. GILL, “Let us not therefore judge one another more,.... With respect to the observance or non-observance of the laws relating to meats and drinks, and days, and times; the apostle means, that they should not judge rashly, nor anything before the time; they should not censure and judge each other's characters and states, on account of these things, but leave all to the decisive day, to Christ the Judge, and to his bar, before which all must stand: but judge this rather; or reckon this to be the most proper, fit, and advisable: that no man put a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in his brother's way; as
- 100. in the formerpart of the advice the apostle seems to have respect more especially to the weak brethren, who were ready to judge and condemn such as neglected the observance of the laws about meats and days, as transgressors, and as wicked persons, that ought not to be in the communion of the church; so in this he seems more principally to have regard to the stronger brethren; who, through their imprudent use of their Christian liberty, offended weaker minds, and were the occasion of their stumbling and falling, which it became them to be careful to prevent; and rather than be a means of anything of this nature, it was much better, as he afterwards observes, neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, and entirely drop or forego the use of their liberty. HE RY, “. Another rule here prescribed is to those who are clear in these matters, and know their Christian liberty, yet to take heed of using it so as to give offence to a weak brother. This is laid down Rom_14:13, Let us not judge one another any more. “Let it suffice that you have hitherto continued in this uncharitable practice, and do so no more.” The better to insinuate the exhortation, he puts himself in; Let us not; as if he had said, “It is what I have resolved against, therefore do you leave it: but judge this rather, instead of censuring the practice of others, let us look to our own, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way,” - proskomma ē skandalon. We must take heed of saying or doing any thing which may occasion our brother to stumble or fall; the one signifies a less, the other a greater degree of mischief and offence - that which may be an occasion, (1.) Of grief to our brother, “One that is weak, and thinks it unlawful to eat such and such meats, will be greatly troubled to see thee eat them, out of a concern for the honour of the law which he thinks forbids them, and for the good of thy soul which he thinks is wronged by them, especially when thou dost it wilfully and with a seeming presumption, and not with that tenderness and that care to give satisfaction to thy weak brother which would become thee.” Christians should take heed of grieving one another, and of saddening the hearts of Christ's little ones. See Mat_18:6, Mat_18:10. JAMISO , “Let us not therefore judge — “assume the office of judge over” one another; but judge this rather, etc. — a beautiful sort of play upon the word “judge,” meaning, “But let this be your judgment, not to put a stumbling-block,” etc. You have more than enough to handle dealing with yourself, so leave others alone. The greatest battle ever fought Was on the land or sea, I thought: But found it in the human breast Where man with evil thoughts did wrest. The greatest foe that I have found Is not the host on battleground; But that old self who lives within, Inciting man to live in sin. Gary Vanderet
- 101. “John Stott pointsout that there is play on words in the original Greek, which has a double use of the word "judge." The EB catches this with its translation, "Let us therefore cease judging one another, but rather make this simple judgment."[1] Christians should refuse to do anything to harm the spiritual walk of a "weaker" believer. We must choose to limit our freedom if it causes our brother or sister to stumble or fall in their Christian walk Paul acknowledges the predicament that every strong believer faces with regard to these peripheral issues. First, the strong believer knows, "nothing is unclean in itself." Paul wrote to Timothy: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude" (1 Tim 4:4). There was only one forbidden tree in the garden, not a whole forest of trees. There are not a lot of absolutes. The Christian who is strong in faith understands that the world is ours to enjoy. But there is another truth that must be faced that poses a dilemma for the strong Christian: "but to him who thinks anything to be unclean [because of his conscience], to him it is unclean." So the "strong" Christian faces what looks like a paradox. Some activities can be both good and bad at the same time. The "strong" Christian believes that a certain activity is all right while the "weak" Christian thinks it isn't. What does the one who is "strong" do in such cases? Stott writes: "Although the "strong" believer is correct, and he (Paul) shares his convictions (because the Lord Jesus endorsed it), he must not ride roughshod . . . over his brother's conscience (even though his conscience is mistaken)...by imposing his view on him."[2] The reason is that we may harm our brother. And not merely because he sees us doing something he disapproves of; that isn't the issue. The concern is that he may be swayed to follow an example that goes against his conscience. When we do that we are no longer walking in love, because love never disregards a weak conscience. Love limits its own liberty out of respect for others. Wounding a weaker brother's conscience by imposing our views on him is not only to distress him, it may destroy him. If exercising your freedom leads your brother to sin, then don't do it. Don't force people to do things they don't feel free to do. Imagine crossing a swaying bridge over a mountain stream. Some people can run across a bridge like that even though it doesn't have handrails. They are not alarmed by that; they have good balance. But others can't do that; they are afraid of falling into the torrent below. They shake and tremble, inching their way along. They may even get down on their hands and knees and crawl across. But give them time, let them go at their own speed, and they will make it. After a few crossings they gain courage, and eventually they are able to run right across. It is the same with these issues that Paul is speaking about. Some people just can't see themselves moving in a certain area which they have been raised to think is wrong. As with the swaying bridge, it would be cruel for someone who has the freedom to cross boldly to take the arm of one who is timid and force him to run across. He might even lose his balance and fall off the bridge. This is what Paul is warning against. It is unloving to force people to move at your pace. Refusing to indulge a freedom that you enjoy, for the sake of someone else, and adjusting to his pace, is surely one of the clearest and truest exercises of Christian love. And notice the clear perspective that love has on the weaker
- 102. brother's worth. Heis one "for whom Christ died." If Christ loved him enough to die for him, ought we not love him enough to refrain from wounding his conscience? The issue here is not a matter of offending a brother or sister, but the possibility of injuring them spiritually. It is matter of someone's conscience being weak, not of someone's prejudices being irritated. There are many instances of people being offended by our actions that have nothing to do with losing their faith or hindering their growth. That is not what Paul is talking about. If that were the case, we could scarcely do anything without offending someone. The church would be controlled by the narrowest and most prejudiced person in the congregation. The gospel itself would become identified with that viewpoint, and the watching world would think that Christians are narrow minded people whose only concern is to prevent the enjoyment of the good gifts of life that God has given. o. Jesus offended a lot of people. He offended the Pharisees. He offended the Sadducees. He offended politicians. He offended the Jews. He offended the Gentiles. Paul is referring to acting in such a way that someone will be damaged by our behavior. He is speaking of people who, if they emulated us in that behavior, would be in danger of damaging their spiritual life. That is the issue. STEDMA I have always appreciated the fact that Scripture is never merely negative. It never says, "Do not do something," without suggesting a positive action to take its place. If all the apostle had to say was, "Stop judging," that would be like saying to someone, "Do not worry," which is a futile thing to say, unless you give them a basis on which they can stop worrying. If you try to stop worrying without any reason for doing so, you will find yourself worrying all the more; that is the nature of worry. Someone said, The worry cow would have lived till now, if only she'd saved her breath. But she got so afraid she was going to worry, that she worried half to death! Scripture never says anything like that. It does not merely say, "Stop judging"; it says, "Stop judging, but, if you want to judge, fine! Start with yourself; judge yourself." Are you pushing liberty so hard, are you insisting on your rights in certain areas, and your freedom to indulge in something, that you are upsetting others and forcing them to act beyond their own conscience? That is what you ought to judge. What is the effect upon others of your attitudes about some of these things? The apostle goes on to give us two reasons why we must not judge others, but must judge ourselves first in this area. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but
- 103. judge this rather,that no man put a stumbling-block … , in his brother’s way. Limitations of Christian liberty It is limited— I. In its extent; by a tender regard for the weak. Love— 1. Avoids offence. 2. Respects the convictions of others. 3. Denies itself. II. In its object; the furtherance of the kingdom of God. 1. By guarding against reproach. 2. By esteeming spiritual blessings above all others. 3. By promoting the work of God in others. III. In its rule of action; faith. 1. Allows only what faith permits. 2. Avoids what faith does not endorse. (J. Lyth, D.D.) The voluntary limitation of Christian liberty I. Its extent. It— 1. Avoids offence. 2. Yields its conscious right for the sake of others. 3. Guards against the appearance of evil. II. Its encouragements. 1. The kingdom of God suffers no disadvantage. 2. The weak brother is spared. 3. Private conviction and action are not sacrificed. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Things indifferent I. What things are indifferent? Things— 1. Not forbidden. 2. That have in themselves no moral value. 3. That are clearly ascertained as such by an enlightened conscience. II. When do they cease to be so? 1. When they become a stumbling-block to others. 2. When they infringe the law of love. 3. When they oppose the work of Christ—when they occasion reproach. (J. Lyth,
- 104. D.D.) In guarding againstoffence we must take care 1. To preserve our personal liberty. 2. Not to violate the law of love. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Personal responsibility In the early part of his letter to the Romans the apostle expounds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. In this latter part he applies these doctrines to the problems and duties of daily life. In the Roman Church he is confronted, as ministers of the gospel are confronted even to the present day, with two antagonistic parties, the legal and the spiritual, the conservative and the liberal, or, as he terms them, the weak and the strong. How to reconcile these two parties in the one Christian Church is the problem which engages the attention of him who has the care of all the Churches. A recognition of the Lord’s authority, a desire to execute the Lord’s purpose, and a confession of the Lord’s goodness, characterise both parties. But while there is good on both sides, there are on both sides manifestations of evil. A spirit of uncharitableness is seen in the judgments of both, and to this the apostle directs his teaching as he urges the exhortation, “Let us not therefore judge one another any more.” 1. The first argument against this habit of uncharitable criticism is found in the truth that judgment belongs unto God, man being incompetent to render it. “Why dost thou judge thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.” The Omniscient alone is competent to judge. (1) We have not sufficient knowledge of the mind of the Master to determine the standard of action. “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?” My conception is my working standard. It is the Master’s commission to me. His word to my brother may be different. We may move in opposite directions and yet both fulfil the purpose of one controlling mind. Let me be assured that my feet are planted on the truth, but let me beware how I deny that my brother stands upon the truth because he does not occupy the same square-foot of ground on which I stand. No man has a monopoly of truth. (2) Again, we are incompetent to judge because we have not sufficient knowledge of the mind of the fellow-servant to determine the motive with which his action is performed. “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for the Lord hath received him.” Ofttimes man can look no farther than the outward appearance. God looketh upon the heart. He weighs the motive. Yet, spite of their incompetence, how free men are to usurp this Divine prerogative of judgment! Without God’s knowledge, without God’s love, they are quick to condemn. Before the bar of God each is responsible for himself alone. 2. In this solemn fact the apostle finds his second argument against the habit of judging others. “Each one of us shall give account of himself to God: let us not, therefore, judge one another any more.” God does not hold us responsible for our brother’s action; but He does hold us responsible for our influence upon him. The large demands of the Divine Judge upon the Christian in relation to his brethren, the apostle now urges especially upon the strong. There is reason in making the
- 105. application especially tothe strong, for in the matters under discussion they alone have freedom of choice. The strong Christian may eat or forbear eating. He may observe the day or not observe the day. The weak, however, in his present moral condition, has no choice. To those who have the larger opportunity the truth is the more broadly applied. But we are not obliged to think that the entire doctrine of the relation of the strong to the weak is set forth in this chapter. Were that the case it might seem as if Paul exalted the weak man’s conscience to a place of tyranny. This surely is not his teaching. Truth is supreme. Opinion can never usurp her throne. If the weak brother’s opinion is not the truth, his position is open to attack, and in the fuller presentation of the truth it may be necessary to oppose it. Paul himself was constantly leading in such opposition. Not only may the position of the weak brother be attacked; there are times when his scruples have to be disregarded. They may always be disregarded by you when they are opposed to a clear conviction of your duty. “Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” and he need not, he must not desist out of regard for another’s conscience. But if, after sufficient and candid study, he is fully assured that it is his duty to act, he must act, however his action may grieve his weaker brother. Even in matters which may be termed indifferent, the scruples of the weak brother may deserve to be set aside. Paul himself is our example. To him circumcision is nothing. At one time, on account of the Jews, he circumcises Timothy. At another time, when certain came to spy out the Christian’s liberty and to bring him into bondage, he refuses to circumcise Titus. To these he “gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue” with the Christian disciples. There are, therefore, grounds on which the position of the weak brother may be attacked and his scruples disregarded. Nevertheless, there are grounds on which the position of the weaker brother must be respected, and his scruples receive special regard. “If because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according to love.” My act is not right simply because it does not harm me. As a child of God I must look upon the things of others. Christianity is satisfied with no standard but that of love. If this is true Christian doctrine the application in Christian ethics is clear. Justice is conformity to a standard; the Christian standard of life is the loving nature of God. I cannot therefore be just in the Christian sense unless I have love. Not what is good for me alone, nor what is good for my brother alone, but what is best for all, is to determine my action as a child of God. But the law of love is not satisfied with the attainment of anything less than the best good of all. There are many goods. They are of divers values. Freedom in eating and drinking is a good, but this is not the highest good which Christianity has to bestow. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The man who, in his zeal to establish the right to eat and drink, or the right to the free observance to a religious day, cares not how much he disturbs the peace, diminishes the joy, and undermines the righteousness of his brethren, really places the minor above the major, the subordinate above the supreme. In seeking a good, he misses the best good of the kingdom of God. But the strong may say in way of defence: Inasmuch as nothing is unclean of itself, may we not encourage other to imitate us in customs which are not opposed to any law of righteousness? No, says the apostle, not so long as the weak brother considers the thing unclean, or the act unrighteous. The end of Christianity is not right conduct, viewed apart from its motive, but virtuous character. Christianity has not attained its ideal when certain legal decrees have been obeyed, but only when certain moral experiences have been evoked. A merely legal system might be satisfied with formally correct conduct, but a vital religion demands a godly character. The teaching is sharp and decisive. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Whatsoever is done without consent
- 106. of the moralnature, whatsoever is done contrary to what one believes to be right, is sin. This is striking doctrine. But does not our best ethics confirm this view? Do we not frequently see the unhappy results of submission to precepts which may be right, and yet are in opposition to the beliefs of the heart? In such submission the man surrenders his freedom, the birthright of moral manhood. He submits to the rule of his fellow-men. In opposition to the teaching of Christ, “Call no man master,” he yields his sovereignty and lets others lay down the law of his life. Whatsoever is not of faith is of foreign dictation. It is the act of the bondman, not of the freeman. By such conformity the man benumbs his sense of obligation. It is this sense which binds him to the eternal truth. It is like the cable which holds the buoy to its moorings. The sense of obligation is the one assuring evidence that God has not forgotten us. This binds us to the eternal throne. Like the clue which Ariadne gave to Theseus, it leads through devious ways out into the world of light, of life, and of love; it leads to the throne, to the feet, to the heart of God. Lose this thread and the soul is left alone, “in wandering mazes lost.” Cherish your own sense of obligation; beware how you injure another’s. More fundamentally still, the performance of an act which is contrary to the soul’s belief, to which the consent of the moral nature is not given, is essentially subordination of the impulse to live for others to the impulse to live for one’s self. The teachings of this chapter become intelligible in proportion as we come to understand the end which Christianity seeks to attain. Christianity aims not simply to cause our actions to conform to a certain legal standard, but rather to make us partake of the nature and thus of the blessed experiences of the ever-blessed God. (T. D. Anderson.) Personal responsibility The discussion which we reach in this part of the Epistle to the Romans turns not on great and plain matters of righteousness and equity, on which there can be but one opinion. It is not aimed against our judging a wrong to be what it is, for how can we help condemning the violator of law? but it all has reference to daily questions where there is no positive rule for any one but such as grows up in the community and shifts with changing circumstances. The private conscience properly asks, Is this right for me? The social conscience asks, Is this right, all things considered? So the well-trained moral sense of the Christian is broad in its scope and unselfish in its utterances. Practical duties in the New Testament are seen to be the sequence of sublime truths. We see that there could not help being wide differences in temperament and attainments among such converts, and that many serious complications might arise in their attempts to walk according to the new Way of life. It is so everywhere in modern times in the missionary fields. We can see, from our own selves, how strong the temptation would be to “take positions upon such matters where there was no, “Thus saith the Lord,” and where for that very reason men grow pugnaciously sure. First of all we note that while he places himself on the side of the strong and says that nothing is unclean of itself, he does not try to change the feelings of either party for the sake of a dull and heartless uniformity of practice. He does not turn to the weak brother and say to him, Give up your absurd scruples! or belabour him with proofs that he ought to be free from the law. Nor does he say to the strong, You have no right to a freedom upon things not free to others! Give up your liberty for the common good! On the contrary, he tells him to keep his faith as to all these things and have it before God. And for the establishment of this he sets up a great landmark in morals. We are personally accountable for ourselves unto God, and are never called upon to sit in judgment upon others who are the servants of the same God
- 107. and show thefruits of the Spirit in their lives. Of course we must condemn wickedness wherever we behold it. While we are our brother’s keeper and owe him a debt of loving care and sympathetic influence, we are not his overseer, divinely set up to regulate every attitude of his mind and the small details of his conduct. Christian love may degenerate into officiousness. The apostle shows that we ought to cultivate a regard for another’s conscience all the more if it is weak. God is speaking through it. To him that esteemeth a thing to be profane, to him it is profane. By your inconsiderate freedom, he says, you may actually destroy your brother who will stand by your side at the judgment-seat and for whom Christ died. But besides this, love is more than liberty. What is liberty? Does not all turn upon the use we make of liberty and the nature of the thing about which we are free? One observation seems proper at this point as to the use of wine. It is of the Lord that Christian sentiment should favour the weaker side everywhere, but the question may fairly arise whether the strong have any rights or any place for the use of their freedom. The words of Paul are clear that if we have faith that gives us liberty we are to hold it before God and not to create a sin for ourselves because another has found one. In the constant movements towards a better social life more and more attention is given to the poor and the oppressed, to the victims of appetite and of evil in all its forms, and more is asked of every Christian to-day in the way of personal sacrifice than ever before. But the practical guide upon a thousand matters of daily conduct, where we ask, Shall we dance? Shall we play cards? Shall we attend the theatre? Shall we visit and ride on the Lord’s Day? is found within these great lessons of the apostle. He says, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. That “faith” is not the common belief of the Christian, but a regulative principle derived from the Word of God and the practices of His people. For us, then, if serious questions arise, let there be a simple rule. We can abstain. We can be safe. We can place ourselves where no act of ours can by any possibility destroy the delicate bloom of another’s faith, and where we give up a trifle and have a kingdom of peace within! (E. N. Packard.) Personal rights Well, is there no other question? Yes, oh yes, there is another question. What is that? It is the great question as to what a man may do with his rights. Paul takes the ground that every man must assert his personal rights. Now the question is, having once shown that I can indulge in such and such pleasures without any harm to me, and with some benefit, shall I go on and indulge in them without any regard to the effect which my indulgence may have on others? “Oh no,” says Paul. “There is no harm in your eating meat dedicated to an idol, but if your brother sees you do it, and, misunderstanding the whole of it, is led conscientiously into wrong, then you do not act wisely or kindly; for you use your right to break down his conscience and his right.” There are two principles in regard to rights. The first is to ascertain and vindicate them, and the next is to subject them to the law of love. There are a great many things that I have a right to, till love comes and says, “Will you not forbear them for the sake of others?” I have a right to eat meat; but for me to do it under circumstances such that my whole household are led to eat it, and they are thrown into a fever, is wrong. For the sake of keeping my children well, I would abstain from eating meat. I have a right to drink wine; but if I found that my drinking wine would lead poorer men to drink whiskey, or the young men around me to drink wine, I would say to myself, “Shall I use a right of mine in such a way as to destroy my fellow- men for whom Christ died? That would not be acting wisely nor well.” (H. W. Beecher.)
- 108. Self-denial for others Afriend told me that he was visiting a lighthouse lately, and said to the keeper, “Are you not afraid to live here? it is a dreadful place to be constantly in.” “No,” replied the man, “I am not afraid. We never think of ourselves here.” “Never think of yourselves! How is that?” The reply was a good one. “We know that we are perfectly safe, and only think of having our lamps burning brightly, and keeping the reflectors clear, so that those in danger may be saved.” That is what Christians ought to do. They are safe in a house built on a rock, which cannot be moved by the wildest storm, and in a spirit of holy unselfishness they should let their light gleam across the dark waves of sin, that they who are imperilled may be guided into the harbour of eternal safety. (Sword and Trowel.) Selfishness A man is called selfish, not for pursuing his own good, but for neglecting his neighbour’s. (Abp. Whately.) The sacredness of man While from the beginning the kindly affections of men’s nature have been largely developed, outside of their own households they have seldom felt themselves under much obligation to men, and outside their acquaintanceship and nation are felt a hundred obligations of aversion. And it is one of the tokens of the Divine inspiration of the truth that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” has been the declaration of the Divine law from the earliest period. And there is no duty that the Apostle Paul so developed as this. Note— I. The ground on which he puts men is the ground of their sacredness. 1. Christians are tempted to judge men by standards that are not the highest nor the most Christian. (1) We are tempted to put value upon men according to their social relationships. A man may be very low in the social scale, and we may be accustomed in measuring him to call him a brute, and worthless, but the man has some other value besides that which consists in his relationship to society. (2) Nay, a man’s economic value may be nil. There are many who do not produce as much as they eat. They are sick or shiftless, and die useless paupers. And we are apt to speak of them with contempt as being the “dregs of society.” 2. And yet, low as they are, their value may be beyond count. (1) For every man is God’s creature in a sense that none of the inferior animals are. He is made after the image of God. (2) More than this, every man is made sacred by what has been done for him. In the old days the colonists were forbidden to manufacture anything for themselves. The privilege of furnishing these things to them was reserved to the Crown. Not only that, but the very timber of the country was sorted out, and wherever a valiant pine or a noble oak, fit for the masts or for the ribs of ships was found, the Broad Arrow was stamped on it. The tree was in no respect different, but when people saw the Broad Arrow they said, “That is the king’s.”
- 109. Now it isnot an arrow, it is a cross that is stamped upon every living soul. For every human being Christ died; and this is made to he the sign and token of the value that is in every man (verse 15). (3) Again, men are to be greatly respected for their development into immortality. Although there is but very little value in acorns, when they are planted they will become trees; but what they will be when a hundred years have dealt with them no man can tell. And though men, as seeds, are comparatively insignificant, when they shall have been planted again, in a fairer clime and in a better soil, and shall have been under a higher culture, they will then unfold their real and true selves, to which they will not come in their relationship to time and society. II. It is upon the ground of the value that inheres in men that we must not put any stumbling-block in their way. It is a case in which the highest are to serve the lowest. It is being to men what mothers are to children. What father is there that does not subdue himself to the level of the cradle? Accomplishments, tastes, and liberties are commanded to serve the wants of the little one. We must use our liberty and our strength for men, not them for our strength and liberty. 1. It is right, if a man is worshipping superstitiously, to supplant the superstition by a more rational worship. If I go into a Catholic church, and there stands the font of sacred water by the door, and I perceive one and another dipping their hands in and making the sign of the cross with the utmost reverence, I do not follow their example; I have no need of it; and yet I should abuse my liberty if I were to ridicule the act, or if I were to use my liberty and my intelligence to oppress the consciences of those that were lower and less than I. To a person who performs the act it may seem sacred; and if you cast contempt upon it you may be a violator of what is sacred to him, and therefore you may put a stumbling-block in his way. Idolaters were not treated with disrespect by Christ and His apostles. When Paul stood in the midst of the radiant idols at Athens he never spoke of them in such a way as to wound the feelings of any one who believed in them. 2. It is sometimes said of men, “They do not preach all that they believe.” They would be fools if they did. You might as well say to the mother who has a medicine chest, “Give all the medicine there is in that chest,” as to say to a man, “Preach all that you believe.” A man preaches to build men up. Are you to reproach a man for not putting all the materials for building into every edifice that he constructs? If a man builds of brick he does not think it necessary to exhaust the whole material that the country affords. And a man that teaches is not teaching for the sake of unsettling men. There are those who pile sermon upon sermon the year round, loosening everything, and at last nothing remains. But it is said, “They are bold men.” Yes; and they may do harm with their boldness. “Well, they are honest.” Honesty is a good thing; but even that should be handled prudently. It is better that men should have truth than that they should have delusion and falsity; but it is not wise that the change should be made too abruptly. Where a man has on a filthy garment, it is better that he should wear it than that he should go naked. Don’t take it from him until you have a better one to put in the place of it. 3. A man has a right, in the employment of his wealth, to have regard for the comfort and refinement of himself and his household. But no man has a right to such a use of wealth as shall be exclusive and selfish. A man has a right to the use of his property, but he must use it charitably. And, on the other hand, those that are poor are not to rail at rich men, but are to act according to the spirit which is contained in the gospel
- 110. (verses 2, 3). 4.There are very many pleasures which I avoid, not because I have the slightest conscience respecting the things themselves, or because I suppose they would be otherwise than beneficial to me, but because my example should be such as not to mislead, but lead aright, the young men of the community, who, in looking upon what I did, if I indulged in all those things which were harmless to me, might venture on things that I could do safely, and they could not. 5. This should be carried still further. I hold that there is no one thing that is more perilous to young men than the usages of society in the matter of intoxicating drinks. Nevertheless, if I observe that my brother, in a neighbouring church, holds a contrary view, I have no right of disputation over his conscience. I may wish that he could see as I do; I may even attempt to give him the light that I have; but if, after all, in the exercise of his own judgment and discretion, he says, “I stand in my liberty before God,” I have no right to cast an imputation on him and his liberty. (H. W. Beecher.) I know … , that there is nothing unclean of itself. How the same thing may be clean and unclean I. Nothing is unclean of itself. 1. Every creature of God is good. 2. May be lawfully used. 3. When sanctified by an enlightened conscience. II. Everything becomes unclean. 1. When abused. 2. When used by him that esteems it unclean. (J. Lyth, D.D.) But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. — The duty of sacrificing private enjoyment for another’s benefit I. The case supposed. The enjoyment though lawful, is a stumbling-block to another. II. The apostle’s decision of it. It is a violation of the law of love, because selfish in itself, injurious in its effect. III. The consequent duty. Of abstinence, lest you destroy him for whom Christ died, leaving you an example of self-sacrifice. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.— Christ’s death, a man’s destruction I. Christ died to save all. “He is the propitiation … for the sins of the whole world.” His death was a fact in the Divine government in which all are interested, a provision of Divine mercy, like the sun, the air, and the various elements of nature, from which all
- 111. could derive thesame supplies. II. Though He died to save all, some will be destroyed. The truth has no practical influence on a man unless he studies it, and he may study it or not, rightly or not, the provision does not stream its blessings into a man, irrespective of his choice or efforts. The sun will not give its light to a man unless he open his eyes, nor will the water allay his burning thirst unless he drinks it in. “Ye will not come unto Me,” etc. III. This destruction may be effected by a brother. One man can and often does spiritually ruin another by his suggestions, his spirit, his example. Whilst God saves man by man the devil damns man by man. Through man the spiritually restorative and destructive forces of the universe are everlastingly working. IV. The brother may do this by a trifling thing—“meat.” By urging thy ceremonial observances thou art likely to ruin him; leave him free to his own conscience. As an invisible atom can destroy animal life, a little sin can damn a soul. (D. Thomas, D.D.) 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. BAR ES, “I know - This is an admission made to the “Gentile” convert, who believed that it was lawful to partake of food of every kind. This the apostle concedes; and says he is fully apprized of this. But though he knew this, yet he goes on to say Rom_14:15, that it would be well to regard the conscientious scruples of others on the subject. It may be remarked here that the apostle Paul had formerly quite as many scruples as any of his brethren had then. But his views had been changed. And am persuaded - Am convinced. By the Lord Jesus - This does not mean by any “personal” instruction received from the Lord Jesus, but by all the knowledge which he had received by inspiration of the nature of the Christian religion. The gospel of Jesus had taught him that the rites of the Mosaic economy had been abolished, and among those rites were the rules respecting clean and unclean beasts, etc. There is nothing unclean - Greek “common.” This word was used by the Jews to denote what was “unclean,” because, in their apprehension, whatever was partaken by the multitude, or all people, must be impure. Hence, the words “common” and “impure” are often used as expressing the same thing. It denotes what was forbidden by the laws of
- 112. Moses. To him thatesteemeth ... - He makes it a matter of conscience. He regards certain meats as forbidden by God; and while he so regards them, it would be wrong for him to partake of them. Man may be in error, but it would not be proper for him to act in violation of what he “supposes” God requires. CLARKE, “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus - After reasoning so long and so much with these contending parties on the subject of their mutual misunderstandings, without attempting to give any opinion, but merely to show them the folly and uncharitableness of their conduct, he now expresses himself fully, and tells them that nothing is unclean of itself, and that he has the inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ to say so; for to such an inspiration he must refer in such words as, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus. And yet, after having given them this decisive judgment, through respect to the tender, mistaken conscience of weak believers, he immediately adds: But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean; because if he act contrary to his conscience, he must necessarily contract guilt; for he who acts in opposition to his conscience in one case may do it in another, and thus even the plain declarations of the word of God may be set aside on things of the utmost importance, as well as the erroneous though well-intentioned dictates of his conscience, on matters which he makes of the last consequence; though others who are better taught know them to be indifferent. It is dangerous to trifle with conscience, even when erroneous; it should be borne with and instructed; it must be won over, not taken by storm. Its feelings should be respected because they ever refer to God, and have their foundation in his fear. He who sins against his conscience in things which every one else knows to be indifferent, will soon do it in those things in which his salvation is most intimately concerned. It is a great blessing to have a well-informed conscience; it is a blessing to have a tender conscience; and even a sore conscience is infinitely better than none. GILL, “I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,.... As for the apostle's own sense and judgment about the distinction of meats, it was this, that there is nothing unclean of itself; that every creature, as originally made by God, is good; that what is eatable, or fit for food, may be eaten, whatever the Mosaic laws, being now abrogated, say to the contrary; and that whatever physical or natural difference there may be between the creatures of God, one being naturally fit for food, and another not; yet there is no moral distinction between them, there is nothing in any of them that can morally defile a man by eating them; nor indeed is there now any ceremonial distinction between them, and so no ceremonial pollution by them. This was not a bare conjecture, nor a mere opinion, but a point of certain knowledge, a matter of faith, and of full assurance of faith; the apostle was thoroughly persuaded of the truth of it, and had not the least doubt nor difficulty in his mind about it; he was as fully assured of it, as he was of his salvation by Christ, and of his interest in the love of God, from which he could never be separated, and therefore expresses it in language equally as strong; and this he came to the knowledge and persuasion of, "by the Lord Jesus"; by his
- 113. express words, Mat_15:11;or by a revelation from him, in which way he had the whole Gospel: he might be informed of this matter in like manner as Peter was, by a vision from heaven, Act_10:10, or he knew this through the abrogation of the whole ceremonial law by Christ, who abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, and so these laws relating to the difference of meats among the rest; and he knew, that all the creatures in their original creation were good, and though cursed, for man's sake yet Christ had removed the curse, and sanctified them for the use of his people, who, under the Gospel dispensation, might make use of them at pleasure, without distinction: and the Jews themselves own, that what before was unclean, shall in the days of the Messiah be clean: so they explain Psa_146:7; "the Lord looseth the prisoners", which they would render, "the Lord looseth that which was forbidden"; and give this as the sense (r). "every beast which was unclean in this world (the Jewish state), לבוא לעתיד אותה מטהר ,הבה "God will cleanse it in the time to come" (in the times of the Messiah), when they shall be clean as at the first, to the sons of Noah.'' So they observe, that the Hebrew word for a hog, ,חזיר comes from ,חזר which signifies to return; because, say they (s), hereafter God will cause it to return to the Israelites; and even now, as formerly, they allow of eating anything that is torn, or dies of itself, or hog's flesh to an army entering into a Gentile country, and subduing it, where they can find nothing else (t): but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is uncleanbut to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is uncleanbut to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is uncleanbut to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean; such a man that thinks the laws concerning clean and unclean meats are still in force, and binding upon him, ought to refrain from eating them; because he would act contrary to his conscience, and so violate and defile it; wherefore though the apostle was so fully satisfied in his own, mind, yet he would not have weak and scrupulous consciences do themselves any hurt through his faith; for if they ate doubtingly, and without faith, it was an evil. Capellus (u) mentions a rule laid down by the Jews, but does not direct where it is to be found, nor have I yet met with it, very agreeable to this of the apostle's, which runs thus: "this is the grand general rule in the law, that every thing which thou dost not know, או מותר הוא אסור עליך אסוראם , "whether it is lawful or unlawful, to thee it is unlawful", until thou hast asked a wise men concerning who may teach thee that it is lawful.'' JAMISO , “I know, and am persuaded by — or rather, “in” the Lord Jesus — as “having the mind of Christ” (1Co_2:16). that there is nothing unclean of itself — Hence it is that he calls those “the strong” who believed in the abolition of all ritual distinctions under the Gospel. (See Act_10:15).
- 114. but — “savethat” to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean — “and therefore, though you can eat of it with out sin, he cannot.” How would a weak brother be grieved? Simply by seeing a strong Christian do what he felt was wrong. If you are strongly convinced that something is wrong, and you see a strong believer do it, you will be grieved over his seeming abuse of liberty. But in the context of Romans 14, I think Paul is saying that the weaker brother is grieved not just because of that, but because he thinks he must follow suit. But by following the instruction or example of the strong believer, he does what he believes is wrong and has to live with the remorse and guilt of his conscience. He forfeits the peace and joy of his Christian walk. MACARTHUR I always think about the story my dad told me about the time he was holding evangelistic meetings in the Midwest and he preached on Sunday all day and they were going to preach every night, and do like a revival, and he said to the pastor, "We want to play golf tomorrow morning." And the pastor said, "We can't do that, we are supposed to have a revival this week, We are supposed to be doing spiritual ministry." He said, "We could never play golf, why would you want to play golf? We are in a spiritual struggle here." My dad said, "Well, I just thought we have some fellowship and get acquainted and play golf and then we'll get involved in the ministry the rest of the week." He said, " aw, I could never do that." Well, so my dad and his song leader went out to play golf and sure enough the pastor showed up, I guess he felt like he needed to be a good host. He said, "I shouldn't be here, but I am here." And my dad said, "First hole, first hole." And as they are walking down the fairway and a guy teeing off, coming the other direction, hit a ball into their fairway, bounced up and hit the pastor right in the mouth! To which he responded, "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, I knew it." ow, by encouraging this man into his liberty, you set him back into legalism for the rest of his life. I mean, he will never believe anything other then that God hit him in the mouth with a golf ball for showing up on Monday. You are better off not to force anybody into a liberty they don't enjoy in their own conscience, because if anything goes wrong, they will go deeper into their own legalism. STEDMA ow, there is a fundamental, psychological insight into life that governs our behavior in these areas, or it ought to. It is one thing to be free yourself to partake of something that others are not free to indulge in. And, like the apostle, you may have arrived at that by some direct teaching of Scripture, even as Paul did in the case of the Lord Jesus himself. Actually, it does not really say in the Greek text, as this version translates it, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus," that is, as one speaking as a Christian. What Paul
- 115. really says is,"As one who has been taught by the Lord Jesus, no food is unclean in itself." The Lord Jesus did say that. It was he who said, " o food is unclean." He does not mean that all foods are good for you; some foods are not; some things you can eat are highly poisonous. Jesus does not mean that everything is all right to take in; he means that there is no moral question about food. It is never wrong, morally, to eat what your body may enjoy. Jesus taught that himself, and Paul says, "That is enough for me. That sets me free." But that is not the only problem involved. The conscience needs to be trained by this new insight into liberty. One person's conscience may move much slower than another's, therefore, we are to adjust to one another's needs along this line. I liken this to crossing a swinging bridge over a mountain stream. There are people who can run across a bridge like that, even though it does not have any handrails. They are not alarmed by it, they can keep their balance well. They are not concerned about the swaying of the bridge, or the danger of falling into the torrent below. That is fine; some people can do that. But others cannot. You watch them go out on a bridge like that, and they are very uncertain. They shake and tremble; they inch along. They may even get down on their hands and knees and crawl across. But they will make it if you just give them time, if you let them set their own speed. After a few crossings, they begin to pick up courage, and eventually they are able to run right across. It is like that with these moral questions. Some people just cannot see themselves moving in a certain area that they have been brought up to think is wrong; they have difficulty doing so. As in the case of the swinging bridge, it would be cruel for someone who had the freedom to cross boldly to take the arm of someone who was timid and drag them across, to force them to run across. They might even lose their balance and fall off the bridge and suffer injury. CALVI , “14.I know, etc. To anticipate their objection, who made such progress in the gospel of Christ as to make no distinction between meats, he first shows what must be thought of meats when viewed in themselves; and then he subjoins how sin is committed in the use of them. He then declares, that no meat is impure to a right and pure conscience, and that there is no hindrance to a pure use of meats, except ignorance and infirmity; for when any imagines an impurity in them, he is not at liberty to use them. But he afterwards adds, that we are not only to regard meats themselves, but also the brethren before whom we eat: for we ought not to view the use of God’ bounty with so much indifference as to disregard love. His words then have the same meaning as though he had said, — “ know that all meats are clean, and therefore I leave to thee the FREE use of them; I allow thy conscience to be freed from all scruples: in SHORT , I do not simply restrain thee from meats; but laying aside all regard for them, I still wish thee not to neglect thy neighbor.” By the word common, in this place, he means unclean, and what is taken indiscriminately by the ungodly; and it is opposed to those things which had been especially set apart for the use of the faithful people. He says that he knew, and was fully convinced, that all meats are pure, in ORDER to remove all doubts. He addsin the Lord Jesus; for by his favor and grace it is, that all the creatures which were accursed in Adam, are blessed to us by the Lord. (427) He intended, however, at the same time, to set the liberty given by Christ in opposition to the bondage of the law,
- 116. lest they thoughtthat they were bound to observe those rites from which Christ had made them free. By the exception which he has laid down, we learn that there is nothing so pure but what may be contaminated by a corrupt conscience: for it is faith alone and godliness which sanctify all things to us. The unbelieving, being polluted within, defile all things by their very touch. (Titus 1:15.) (427) To elicit this meaning, which is in itself true, [Calvin ] must have construed the sentence thus, “ know, and I am persuaded, that through the Lord Jesus nothing is of itself unclean:” but this is not the meaning. What the Apostle says is, that he knew, and was fully assured by the Lord Jesus, that is, by the teaching of his word Spirit, that nothing was in itself unclean, all ceremonial distinctions having been now removed and abolished. — Ed. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. BAR ES, “But if thy brother ... - This address is to the “Gentile” convert. In the previous verse, Paul admitted. that the prejudice of the Jew was not well-founded. But admitting that still the question was, “how” he should be treated while he had that prejudice. The apostle here shows the Gentile that “he” ought not so to act as unnecessarily to wound his feelings, or to grieve him. Be grieved - Be pained; as a conscientious man always is, when he sees another, and especially a Christian brother, do anything which “he” esteems to be wrong. The “pain” would be real, though the “opinion” from which it arose might not be well founded. With thy meat - Greek, On account of meat, or food; that is, because “you” eat what he regards as unclean. Now walkest - To “walk,” in the Sacred Scriptures, often denotes to act, or to do a thing; Mar_7:5; Act_21:21; Rom_6:4; Rom_8:1, Rom_8:4. Here it means that if the Gentile convert persevered in the use of such food, notwithstanding the conscientious scruples of the Jew, he violated the law of love. Charitably - Greek, According to charity, or love; that is, he would violate that law which required him to sacrifice his own comfort to promote the happiness of his brother; 1Co_13:5; 1Co_10:24, 1Co_10:28-29; Phi_2:4, Phi_2:21. Destroy not him - The word “destroy” here refers, doubtless, to the ruin of the soul in hell. It properly denotes ruin or destruction, and is applied to the ruin or “corruption” of various things, in the New Testament. To life Mat_10:39; to a reward, in the sense of
- 117. “losing” it Mar_10:41;Luk_15:4; to food Joh_6:27; to the Israelites represented as lost or wandering Mat_10:6; to “wisdom” that is rendered “vain” 1Co_1:9; to “bottles,” rendered “useless” Mat_9:17, etc. But it is also frequently applied to destruction in hell, to the everlasting ruin of the soul; Mat_10:28, “Who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell;” Mat_18:14; Joh_3:15; Rom_2:12. That “this” is its meaning here is apparent from the parallel place in 1Co_8:11, “And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish.” If it be asked how the eating of meat by the Gentile convert could be connected with the perdition of the Jew, I reply, that the apostle supposes that in this way an occasion of stumbling would be afforded to him, and he would come into condemnation. He might be led by example to partake against his own conscience, or he might be excited to anger, disgust, and apostasy from the Christian faith. Though the apostle believed that all who were true Christians would be saved, Rom_8:30-39, yet he believed that it would be brought about by the use of means, and that nothing should be done that would tend to hinder or endanger their salvation; Heb_6:4-9; Heb_2:1. God does not bring his people to heaven without the use of “means adapted to the end,” and one of those means is that employed here to warn professing Christians against such conduct as might jeopard the salvation of their brethren. For whom Christ died - The apostle speaks here of the possibility of endangering the salvation of those for whom Christ died, just as he does respecting the salvation of those who are in fact Christians. By those for whom Christ died, he undoubtedly refers here to “true Christians,” for the whole discussion relates to them, and them only; compare Rom_14:3-4, Rom_14:7-8. This passage should not be brought, therefore, to prove that Christ died for all people, or for any who shall finally perish. Such a doctrine is undoubtedly true (in this sense; that there is in the death of Christ a “sufficiency for all,” and that the “offer” is to all.) (compare 2Co_5:14-15; 1Jo_2:2; 2Pe_2:1), but it is not the truth which is taught here. The design is to show the criminality of a course that would tend to the ruin of a brother. For these weak brethren, Christ laid down his precious life. He loved them; and shall we, to gratify our appetites, pursue a course which will tend to defeat the work of Christ, and ruin the souls redeemed by his blood? CLARKE, “If thy brother be grieved - If he think that thou doest wrong, and he is in consequence stumbled at thy conduct. Now walkest thou not charitably - Κατα αγαπην, According to love; for love worketh no ill to its neighbor; but by thy eating some particular kind of meat, on which neither thy life nor well-being depends, thou workest ill to him by grieving and distressing his mind; and therefore thou breakest the law of God in reference to him, while pretending that thy Christian liberty raises thee above his scruples. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died - This puts the uncharitable conduct of the person in question in the strongest light, because it supposes that the weak brother may be so stumbled as to fall and perish finally; even the man for whom Christ died. To injure a man in his circumstances is bad; to injure him in his person is worse; to injure him in his reputation is still worse; and to injure his soul is worst of all. No wickedness, no malice, can go farther than to injure and destroy the soul: thy uncharitable conduct may proceed thus far; therefore thou art highly criminal before God. From this verse we learn that a man for whom Christ died may perish, or have his soul destroyed; and destroyed with such a destruction as implies perdition; the original is
- 118. very emphatic, µη- εκεινον απολλυε, ᆓπερ οᆓ Χριστος απεθανε. Christ died in his stead; do not destroy his soul. The sacrificial death is as strongly expressed as it can be, and there is no word in the New Testament that more forcibly implies eternal ruin than the verb απολλυω, from which is derived that most significant name of the Devil, ᆇ Απολλυων, the Destroyer, the great universal murderer of souls. GILL, “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat,.... The apostle proceeds to give reasons why, though he was so fully persuaded that nothing was unclean of itself, and so he, and any other of the same persuasion, might lawfully eat anything; yet they should forbear, and not make use of this liberty; because if a brother should be grieved by it, that is, either should be concerned and troubled at it inwardly, both because the person that eats is thought by him to have transgressed a command of God, and because he himself is not only despised as a weak brother, but as if he was a "judaizing" Christian, and walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel; or else should be emboldened thereby to eat, and so wound and defile his weak conscience; or be so galled and offended at it, as to stumble and fall off from his profession of Christianity, and withdraw his communion, as judging there is nothing in it, no regard being had to the law of God: now walkest thou not charitably; this is a breach of the rule of charity or brotherly love; such an one is a brother, and though a weak one, yet he is to be loved as a brother, and to be charitably walked with: true charity, or love, vaunts not itself over, nor is it puffed up against a weak brother; nor is it unconcerned for his peace, but bears with his weaknesses, and forbears the use of things grieving to him: destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. This is to be understood, not of eternal destruction, that can never be thought to be either in the will or power of any man; such a degree of malice can never arise in the heart of any, to wish for, desire, or take any step towards the eternal damnation of another; and could any thing of this kind be among the men of the world, yet surely not among brethren of the same faith, and in the same church state; and were there any so wicked as to desire this, yet it is not in their power to compass it, for none can destroy eternally but God; see Mat_10:28; besides, it is not reasonable to suppose, that eternal damnation should follow upon eating things indifferent, or be caused by an offence either given or taken through them; moreover, though such as only think themselves, or profess themselves, or are only thought by others to be such, for whom Christ died, may be eternally destroyed, yet none of those can, for whom Christ really died; for they are his special people, his peculiar friends, his own sheep, his body the church, which can never perish; and he, by dying, has procured such blessings for them, such as a justifying righteousness, pardon of sin, peace with God, and eternal life, which will for ever secure them from destruction: besides, should anyone of them be destroyed, the death of Christ would be so far in vain, nor would it appear to be a sufficient security from condemnation, nor a full satisfaction to the justice of God; or God must be unjust, to punish twice for the same fault: but this is to be understood of the destruction of such a man's peace and comfort, which is signified by grieving, stumbling, offending, and making him weak; and the words are a fresh reason, why they that are strong in the faith of Christian liberty, should nevertheless forbear the use of it, to preserve the peace of a weak brother; which is a
- 119. matter of importance,and the rather to be attended to, since it is the peace of one that belongs to Christ, whom he has so loved as to die for, and therefore should be the object of the regard and affections of such as believe in Christ and love him. HE RY, “Consider the royal law of Christian love and charity, which is hereby broken (v. 15): If thy brother be grieved with thy meat - be troubled to see thee eat those things which the law of Moses did forbid, which yet thou mayest lawfully do; possibly thou art ready to say, “Now he talks foolishly and weakly, and it is no great matter what he says.” We are apt, in such a case, to lay all the blame on that side. But the reproof is here given to the stronger and more knowing Christian: Now walkest thou not charitably. Thus the apostle takes part with the weakest, and condemns the defect in love on the one side more than the defect in knowledge on the other side; agreeably to his principles elsewhere, that the way of love is the more excellent way, 1Co_12:31. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth, 1Co_8:1-3. Now walkest thou not charitably. Charity to the souls of our brethren is the best charity. True love would make us tender of their peace and purity, and beget a regard to their consciences as well as to our own. Christ deals gently with those that have true grace, though they are weak in it. [2.] Consider the design of Christ's death: Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died, Rom_14:15. First, Drawing a soul to sin threatens the destruction of that soul. By shaking his faith, provoking his passion, and tempting him to act against the light of his own conscience, thou dost, as much as in thee lies, destroy him, giving him an occasion to return to Judaism. Mē apollue. It denotes an utter destruction. The beginning of sin is as the letting forth of water; we are not sure that it will stop any where on this side of eternal destruction. Secondly, The consideration of the love of Christ in dying for souls should make us very tender of the happiness and salvation of souls, and careful not to do any thing which may obstruct and hinder them. Did Christ quit a life for souls, such a life, and shall not we quit a morsel of meat for them? Shall we despise those whom Christ valued at so high a rate? Did he think it worth while to deny himself so much for them as to die for them, and shall not we think it worth while to deny ourselves so little for them as abstaining from flesh comes to? - with thy meat. Thou pleadest that it is thy own meat, and thou mayest do what thou wilt with it; but remember that, though the meat is thine, the brother offended by it is Christ's, and a part of his purchase. While thou destroyest thy brother thou art helping forward the devil's design, for he is the great destroyer; and, as much as in thee lies, thou art crossing the design of Christ, for he is the great Saviour, and dost not only offend thy brother, but offend Christ; for the work of salvation is that which his heart is upon. But are any destroyed for whom Christ died? If we understand it of the sufficiency and general intendment of Christ's death, which was to save all upon gospel terms, no doubt but multitudes are. If of the particular determination of the efficacy of his death to the elect, then, though none that were given to Christ shall perish (Joh_6:39), yet thou mayest, as much as is in thy power, destroy such. No thanks to thee if they be not destroyed; by doing that which has a tendency to it, thou dost manifest a great opposition to Christ. Nay, and thou mayest utterly destroy some whose profession may be so justifiable that thou art bound to believe, in a judgment of charity, that Christ died for them. Compare this with 1Co_8:10, 1Co_8:11. JAMISO , “But if thy brother be grieved — has his weak conscience hurt with thy meat — rather, “because of meat.” The word “meat” is purposely selected as
- 120. something contemptible incontrast with the tremendous risk run for its sake. Accordingly, in the next clause, that idea is brought out with great strength. Destroy not him with — “by” thy meat for whom Christ died — “The worth of even the poorest and weakest brother cannot be more emphatically expressed than by the words, ‘for whom Christ died’” [Olshausen]. The same sentiment is expressed with equal sharpness in 1Co_8:11. Whatever tends to make anyone violate his conscience tends to the destruction of his soul; and he who helps, whether wittingly or no, to bring about the one is guilty of aiding to accomplish the other. If Jesus was willing to give up His life for the sake of that brother, I can certainly give up my steak dinner! The bottom line with Paul is always love. That is the final answer to many controversial questions-differ in love and do not be offensive to one another. The right thing is always the loving thing. Love will sacrifice freedom to do certain things when it will hurt someone else. You have a right to do it, but you have a loving reason not to, and love must win. MACARTHUR The key point is in Romans 14:15: "Walkest thou not in love?" You need to be sure that the exercise of your liberty is not unloving and insensitive to other believers. The objective of a strong believer in the church of Christ is to conduct himself in love toward a weaker brother. In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul was dealing with some of the Gentiles in Corinth who had trouble eating or drinking what had been offered to idols. Some of the more liberated brethren were not concerned about that because they knew an idol was nothing; therefore anything offered to nothing is nothing. So there was potential for conflict in the church. In verse 9 Paul says, "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." How does that happen? Paul continues, "For if any man see thee, who hast knowledge, sitting at the table in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols, and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (vv. 10-11). When you exercise your freedom, and your brother sees that you are free to do what he thinks is wrong, he might be tempted to follow your example. But when he does, his conscience is guilty because he truly believes it is wrong. So the strong believer has inadvertantly created a guilty conscience in the weak brother, causing him to stumble. It is possible the weaker brother might return into an old pattern of sin. He might go back to an idol feast and get caught up in the orgy and debauchery of it, with disastrous results. The Concept of Destruction The Greek word translated "destroy" is apollumi, which means "to ruin." It is a very strong and serious word. It is translated frequently in Scripture as "perish." It can have several meanings:
- 121. 1. Damnation John 3:16says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Second Peter 3:9 says God is "not willing that any should perish." Other verses using apollumi are Matthew 10:28, Luke 13:3, Romans 2:12, 2 Corinthians 4:3, and 2 Thessalonians 2:10. The word can have the meaning of eternal destruction when referring to unbelievers. 2. Death Apollumi also can be a general term for the death or elimination of something. a) 1 Corinthians 1:19--"It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." God will wipe out the folly of those who suppose themselves to be wise in their worldly philosophies. b) 1 Corinthians 10:9-10--Paul said that the people of Israel were "destroyed by serpents." Then he said, " either murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer." The word is used in this general sense also in Hebrews 1:11, James 1:11, and 1 Peter 1:7. 3. Spiritual loss Apollumi is also used in Scripture to speak of believers. When it is so used, it has some latitude. a) Matthew 18:14--Matthew 18 is a familiar chapter on the childlikeness of the believer. Verse 14 says, "It is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." That verse is part of a passage about not offending Christians. It is a great parallel to Romans 14. Matthew 18:6 says that true believers are like little children. Verse 3 says, "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God." In verse 6 Jesus says that anyone who offends a believer would be better off drowned. In verse 10 Jesus says, "Take heed that ye despise not [Gk., kataphroneo, "look down on"] one of these little ones; for I say unto you that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father, who is in heaven." In verses 12-13 Jesus shows how concerned the Father and the angels are over believers: "If a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more over that sheep than over the ninety and nine which went not astray." God is the shepherd and the sheep are His own. Verse 14 says, "It is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one
- 122. of these littleones should perish." Can you offend a believer to the degree that he will perish forever in hell? o. But he will suffer spiritual loss or experience disaster in his life. He could leave the church. He could lose his joy. He could lose even his effectiveness in ministry. b) 1 Corinthians 8:11--Paul, speaking to believers, said, "Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" In context apollumi cannot mean eternal destruction; it must refer to suffering loss. c) 2 John 8--John, addressing believers, said, "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward." The same word is used to mean the loss of reward. Apollumi, when used in reference to believers, indicates the loss of spiritual blessing. When you cause your brother to stumble, to grieve, or to lose spiritual blessing, you have not acted in a loving way. B. The Cause of Destruction Romans 14:15 says, "Destroy not him with thy food" (emphasis added). Food was emblematic of their liberty. Paul was talking to a liberated Jew who would flaunt a pork chop in the face of a newly converted Jew, or a liberated Gentile who would eat meat offered to idols in front of a newly converted pagan who just came out of an idolatrous system. Why let something as unimportant as food do something as awful as causing spiritual loss for a weaker brother or sister? C. The Contrast of Destruction Paul concludes by telling the strong not to plunge the weak, "for whom Christ died," into spiritual devastation (v. 15). That's a virtual repetition of 1 Corinthians 8:11. How could a strong believer treat in a loveless way someone for whom Christ died in an act of supreme love? What a contrast! Since Christ, the perfect Son of God, loved that weaker brother enough to die for him, shouldn't the strong believer, who is to emulate Christ, love his brother enough not to devastate his spirituality by insisting on his own liberty regardless of the circumstances? MACARTHUR Limited Atonement vs. Unlimited Atonement The phrase at the end of Romans 14:15 says, "For whom Christ died." It is a key phrase that brings up the issue of atonement. 1. The perspective a) Limited atonement
- 123. Some people believethat phrase proves Christ died only for the elect--only for those who believe and not anyone else. That view is characteristic of historic Calvinism. Many scriptures teach Christ did die specifically for believers. Let me give you a few samples. (1) Matthew 1:21--An angel said, "She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." (2) John 10:15--Jesus said, "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." Did Christ die only for the sheep? That verse certainly implies He did. (3) Galatians 1:4--Paul says this of the Lord Jesus Christ: "[He] gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil age." The word "us" refers to believers. (4) Ephesians 5:2--Paul said, "Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God." (5) Ephesians 5:25--Paul said, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." All those scriptures specifically say that Christ died for believers--for the elect. That is what theologians have called "particular redemption." They claim Christ did not die for the whole world--He died only for those who are or who will be redeemed. They fear that if Christ died for the whole world, but the whole world doesn't believe, then Christ died in futility. So to save Christ from a futile act, they particularize redemption. b) Unlimited atonement Let me show you some verses that give a different perspective. (1) John 1:29--"The next day John [the Baptist] seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." (2) John 3:15-17--John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." (3) John 6:51--Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
- 124. (4) Romans 10:13--Paulsaid, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (5) 2 Corinthians 5:14--Paul wrote, "The love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge that, if one died for all, then were all dead." The parallelism is inescapable. The reverse is: since all are dead in sin, therefore Christ died for all. (6) 1 Timothy 2:3-4--Paul said that, "God, our Savior ... will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (7) 1 Timothy 4:10--"Therefore, we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe." (8) 2 Peter 2:1--"There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who secretly shall bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." The Lord paid the penalty for sin of even the heretic, the apostate, the false teacher, and the unbeliever. (9) 1 John 2:2--John tells us that Christ "is the propitiation [covering] for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (10) 1 John 4:14--John said, "We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world." Those passages leave no doubt that Christ died for all mankind. Certainly there are passages that say Jesus died for the elect, but we can't conclude from them alone that He didn't die for the rest. I can say that Christ died on the cross for John MacArthur, but that is not necessarily an exclusive statement. Any verse that particularizes redemption to believers does not exclude that He died for the world as well. 2. The parallel In the Old Covenant, the high point of the Jewish calendar each year was the Day of Atonement. On that day the sins of the nation were atoned for. Leviticus 16:15-17 says that the High Priest is to "kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring its blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgression in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel." Verse 30 says, "On that day shall the priest make an
- 125. atonement for you,to cleanse you, that you may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." Verses 33-34 conclude, "He shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar; and he shall make an atonement for the priest, and for all the people of the congregation. And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year." Was that a limited or unlimited atonement? It was unlimited. That atonement made for the whole nation did not necessarily guarantee the individual salvation of everyone in the nation-- salvation then as now had to be personally appropriated. The Day of Atonement in the Old Testament is the perfect parallel to the atonement of Christ in the ew Testament. The former required an animal sacrifice; the latter involved the one perfect offering of Jesus Christ. He provides a universal redemption that is particularized only by those who put their faith in Him. When we read Romans 14:15 and realize that the weak believer is devastated by our exercise of liberty and our failure to love him, we are reminded that he was one for whom Christ died. We are to build up our brother in love by not causing him to stumble, grieve, or be devastated by falling into sin. CALVI , “15.But if through meat thy brother is grieved, etc. He now explains how the offending of our brethren may vitiate the use of good things. And the first thing is, — that love is violated, when our brother is made to grieve by what is so trifling; for it is contrary to love to occasion grief to any one. The next thing is, — that when the weak conscience is wounded, the PRICE of Christ’ blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach; and we must be basely given up to our own lusts, if we prefer meat, a worthless thing, to Christ. (428) The third reason is, — that since the liberty attained for us by Christ is a blessing, we ought to take care, lest it should be evil spoken of by men and justly blamed, which is the case, when we unseasonably use God’ gifts. These reasons then ought to influence us, lest by using our liberty, we thoughtlessly cause offenses. (429) (428) From the words “ not,” etc., some have deduced the sentiment, that those for whom Christ died may perish for ever. It is neither wise nor just to draw a conclusion of this kind; for it is one that is negatived by many POSITIVE declarations of Scripture. Man’ inference, when contrary to God’ word, cannot be right. Besides, the Apostle’ object in this passage is clearly this, — to exhibit the sin of those who disregarded without saying that it actually effected that evil. Some have very unwisely attempted to obviate the inference above mentioned, by suggesting, that the destruction meant was that of comfort and edification. But no doubt the Apostle meant the ruin of the soul; hence the urgency of his exhortation, — “ not act in such a way as tends to endanger the safety of a soul for whom Christ has shed his blood;” or, “ not,” that is, as far as you can do so. Apostles and ministers are said to “” men; some are exhorted here not to “” them. Neither of these effects can follow, except in the first instance, God grants his blessing, and in the second his permission; and his permission as to his people he will never grant, as he has expressly told us. See Joh_10:27. — Ed. (429) “Vestrum bonum ,” ὑµῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν Some, such as [Grotius ] and [Hammond ], [Scott ],
- 126. [Chalmers ], etc.,AGREE with [Calvin ], and view this “” or privilege, to be Christian liberty, or freedom from ceremonial observances, (see 1Co_10:29;) but [Origen ], [Ambrose ], [Theodoret ], [Mede ], etc., consider that the gospel is meant. The first opinion is the most suitable to the passage. — Ed. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. BAR ES, “Let not then your good ... - That which you esteem to be right, and which may be right in itself. You are not bound by the ceremonial law. You are free from the yoke of bondage This freedom you esteem to be a good - a favor - a high privilege. And so it is; but you should not make such a use of it as to do injury to others. Be evil spoken of - Greek, Be blasphemed. Do not so use your Christian liberty as to give occasion for railing and unkind remarks from your brethren, so as to produce contention and strife, and thus to give rise to evil reports among the wicked about the tendency of the Christian religion, as if it were adapted only to promote controversy. How much strife would have been avoided if all Christians had regarded this plain rule. In relation to dress, and rites, and ceremonies in the church, we may be conscious that we are right; but an obstinate adherence to them may only give rise to contention and angry discussions, and to evil reports among men, of the tendency of religion. In such a case we should yield our private, unimportant personal indulgence to the good of the cause of religion and of peace. CLARKE, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of - Do not make such a use of your Christian liberty as to subject the Gospel itself to reproach. Whatsoever you do, do it in such a manner, spirit, and time, as to make it productive of the greatest possible good. There are many who have such an unhappy method of doing their good acts, as not only to do little or no good by them, but a great deal of evil. It requires much prudence and watchfulness to find out the proper time of performing even a good action. GILL, “Let not then your good be evil spoken of. The Vulgate Latin reads it, "our good", and so the Syriac version; the sense is the same, and to be understood either of the Gospel in general, which is good in its author, matter, effects, and consequences; is good tidings of good things, and which might be blasphemed by the men of the world, on account of the divisions and contentions among the professors of it, about such little trivial things, as eating this or the other sort of food; and therefore care should be taken, that it be not evil spoken of through such conduct: or else the doctrine of Christian
- 127. liberty in particular,which is a good thing; Christ has procured it, and bestows it upon his people; it is a valuable blessing in itself, and is attended and followed with many considerable privileges and immunities; but may be evil spoken of by those, who do not so well understand it, through an imprudent use of it by those who do; and who therefore should guard against any reproach that may be cast upon it; and rather than this should be the case, forego the use of it, in things of an indifferent nature; see 1Co_10:30; so that this is another of the apostle's reasons, why though nothing is of itself unclean, yet it should be abstained from on account of others. JAMISO , “Let not then your good — that is, this liberty of yours as to Jewish meats and days, well founded though it be. be evil spoken of — for the evil it does to others. Our liberty in Christ and freedom from the law is good, but not if we use it to destroy another brother in Christ - then, it could rightly be spoken of as evil What hurts others is evil even if it is good in itself. The blessing of your freedom can become a burden to bear if it leads others to speak of it as wrong and evil. MACARTHUR, “First Peter 2:15 says, "So is the will of God, that with well doing [goodness of life and character] ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." That means you shut the mouths of those who criticize your faith. How do you do that? Verse 16 says, "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness." If you want to silence the critics by your good life, you can't abuse your freedom, and you certainly can't use your freedom as an excuse to cover your sin. What does "your good" refer to? The Greek word translated "good" is agathos. It refers to that which is qualitatively or intrinsically good. Paul has in mind our freedom in Christ--all that salvation provides, all the goodness of enjoying everything God has given us. When someone speaks evil about that good, it has just been blasphemed. We can enjoy everything God has given us. A strong Christian can give thanks for his freedom and rejoice in it. But if he damages other people by abusing it, and the world sees his indifference to the pain of his weaker brother, do you think they will conclude that Christians are a marvelous group of people? ot at all. In Romans 2 Paul tells us that while the Jews were trying to show the world how righteous they were, they destroyed the reputation of God. In verse 24 he says, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you." In 1 Corinthians 10:28-30 the apostle Paul says, "If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience' sake; for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof-- conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? For if I, by grace, be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that which
- 128. I give thanks?" Thisis what Paul means: suppose you go to dinner at a pagan's house with another believer. Your host serves meat offered to idols. You're strong in the faith, your brother is weak, and you're both trying to evangelize the pagan. Your weaker brother puts an elbow in your ribs and whispers, "I can't eat that; it's meat offered to idols. My conscience won't allow me to eat it." Your host is proud of the fact that he is serving you meat sacrificed to idols. What are you going to do? Offend the pagan or your weaker brother? Offend the pagan. If you offend your weaker brother, you've discredited the significance of Christian love. If you offend the pagan to show love to your brother, you've provided a profound testimony for that pagan. You have shown him that love overrules everything. That's the kind of fellowship most pagans would like to get into: a brotherhood where people care enough about each other to set aside their liberties. Perhaps the pagan will be drawn to the gospel by that example. The point of Romans 14:16 is not to forfeit your witness by overdoing your liberty and offending your brother before an unbeliever. The unbeliever needs to see your love for your brother. We don't need to show the world how free we are; we need to show them how loving we are. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Let not then your good be evil spoken off We ought not, for we have none too much. We may through— 1. Ignorance. 2. Levity of temper. 3. Moroseness. 4. Want of stability. 5. Improvidence. 6. A number of little things which, like dust upon a diamond, obscure its lustre, though each particle is almost nothing. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Let not your good be evil spoken of 1. The Bible speaks much of the beauty of holiness. It represents Jesus as the altogether lovely. His beauty consists in His perfect excellence, in the absolute symmetry of His whole character. 2. Believers are epistles of Christ. They are His witnesses. It is their solemn duty to make a fair representation of what He is, and what His religion is before the world. 3. There are two ways in which professors dishonour Christ, and make a false representation of Him and His religion—when by breaking the law they give men to
- 129. understand that Christallows such transgressions, and when they cause even their good to be evil spoken of, i.e., when they so act on right principles as to give those principles a bad character, or so conduct themselves as to mislead others as to the true nature of the gospel. This is done— I. When men so use their Christian liberty as to injure their brethren. The distinctions between months, days, and meats had been abolished. It was right that this fact should be asserted and taught, and that Christians should act upon this liberty; but if they so used it as to destroy their brethren, they sinned against Christ, and caused their good to be evil spoken of. So now in regard to temperance, men may make such a use of truth, and so act on true principles as to do great harm. II. When undue stress is laid on trifles. Paul says that religion does not consist in meat and drink; and to act as though it did is to slander the gospel. This is true of fanatics of all classes, and all bigots. They belie religion, as the tattooed New Zealander or painted Indian misrepresent the human face divine. III. By the sanctimonious, who make a false representation of religion and cause it to be evil spoken of when they hold it up thus caricatured before men. IV. By the censorious. Not only in making non-essentials of too much importance, but also in misrepresenting the spirit of their Master. His religion does not justify their harsh judgments. V. By those who carry any right principle to excess. 1. By the Puritans in regard to the Sabbath, to things indifferent in worship, to days of religious observance. 2. By Quakers in regard to dress and conformity to the world. 3. By those who deny the Church any liberty in her organisation. In every case of this kind the human degrades the Divine. What is indifferent is made essential, and what is essential is made indifferent. (C. Hodge, D.D.) Good evil spoken of (Missionary Sermon):—Our good is evil spoken of— I. If we propagate among others that which we do not receive for ourselves. Create any great system of efforts, and there will be many blindly carried away with it. Many are, therefore, induced to enrol themselves in our missionary associations. “Come, see my zeal,” said the ancient king, “for the Lord of Hosts.” Was not his zeal selfishness rather? But “Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord,” etc. II. When we violate that solemnity which is appropriate to all such transactions. May it not be feared that, in some cases, too great a temper of flippancy has pervaded our assemblies, and characterised our institutions? Could a traveller, in exploring the vestiges of an ancient city, pass along its fallen theatres, its broken aqueducts, its prostrate temples, with levity? Could a philanthropist proceed through the walls of the lazaretto, or the cells of a prison, in a careless and unfeeling mood? Could a negotiator address the revolted and the insurgent with a sportive look and in a jocular tone? Let us copy His faithfulness who upbraided Capernaum, and imitate His compassion who wept over Jerusalem; remembering that we are now labouring in the same course, and should know the fellowship of the same sufferings.
- 130. III. When weforget that due estimate which we should take of what is distant and of what is near in the condition of mankind. Cast your eyes on your native land. Tens of thousands are before you, most imbruted, most immoral. And these are your kinsmen; a thousand ties of brotherhood make them one with yourselves. Cast your thoughts upon the distant realms of idolatry. You cannot tell how great is that darkness, for there is no contrasting light; you cannot tell the dimensions of that misery, for there is no measure by which you can gauge them. And in some districts of our favoured kingdom there are more Christian pastors than these societies have scattered around the circumference of the globe. Now, our good may be evil spoken of if we adopt any invidious partiality in our judgments. There are no souls more precious than those which throng the margins of the Indus, the Ganges, and the Nile; but the souls are alike precious which throng the majestic strands of the Severn, the Humber, and the Thames. IV. If we forget the proportion which should exist between effort and prayer. There is a devotion which becomes selfishness. It wraps itself in a contemplative dream; it will make no sacrifice, engage in no exertion. There is an exertion which becomes impious. It is full of noise and ostentation. Now, it is necessary that devotion and activity be blended. Our labour must be habitual, not accidental—our devotion must be habitual, and not fitful. Look at the apostles—what were their prayers? Pentecost fully come—what were their deeds? Think of angels—they do always behold the face of their God; but they are winds—they are flames of fire. Think of the Son of God, how He spent whole nights in prayer! you see Him going about doing good. Let our prayers sanctify our efforts—let our efforts authenticate our prayers; let us take heaven by violence through the means of the one, and earth by violence through the means of the other. V. When we call in the aid of worldly excitement. Have all our institutions to say that they are unspotted from the world? Has there been no strange fire which we have offered before the Lord? Has there been no suppression of truth, no evasion of facts, no adornment of narrative? Surely, if our purpose be to captivate the world to the Saviour, we must be on our guard, lest, in attempting it, we ourselves be led captive by the world. VI. If we entertain a light view of the eternal danger of the heathen. Make Christianity a question of comparative advantage, of ameliorated state, a measure to give an increase of light already sufficient, a confirmation to hopes already well founded, and the missionary apparatus will soon come to neglect; men will necessarily decry it, as an unmeaning toy and a gaudy superfluity. VII. If we obtrude party opinions and singularities. How pleasing is it that ours is a common cause, and that now, more than ever, ours is a common spirit. When the infidel and the scorner see we are moving in our different tracts, and yet are moving under a common influence and for a common purpose, we shall thus vindicate our good, and, in the absence of all that is little in sectarianism, we shall have our good compelled to be spoken well of. VIII. When there is any disposition to disparage the missionary character. We have formed a heroism of principle and a dint of courage which were unknown; we can bring forth, confidently, men who have died unshrinkingly as martyrs. Can we ever use one term of detraction towards these men? Can we ever yield to them a supercilious patronage and a grudging support? We are honoured that they will go—we are honoured that we may sustain them. Let us remember that the very life—credit—character of our missionary institutions, must depend on the men whom we entrust with this work; and when they have been thus faithful in their work, let us give to them all that cordiality of confidence which they so well deserve, and which it would be unjust to refuse.
- 131. IX. When weapply a harsher rule to our converts than we apply to ourselves. The former may occasionally be carried away by error; but let us think of our own deviations at home. We should, indeed, be disheartened if ever we had to report of any of our native Churches abroad what the apostles had to report of Corinth and of Galatia. X. If we at all encourage the hope of an unscriptural consummation. Remember that the present dispensation is a spiritual one; that it is complete, and nothing can be added to it; that it is an unearthly one, and therefore cannot admit of secular aggrandisement; and it is a final one—it therefore allows of no ulterior revelation. What know you other than this—than that all the world should be Christians?—other than this, that the gospel shall be universally preached? This is your consummation: you desire here no other paradise but to see the earth filled with the trees of righteousness. XI. If we do not follow up our exertions and improve our success. We have made a lodgment, and God’s salvation has been openly showed in the sight of the heathen; and there have been those who have gone up to occupy the breach. Shall we leave them to perish? We have sown the seed; the harvest is come—it invites the sickle. Who would not enter with ecstasy into such a field, and crowd as labourers into such a harvest? (R. W. Hamilton, D.D.) Our good (Christian liberty.) I. Is evil spoken of— 1. By the enemies of the truth, when they see a want of harmony in the Church. 2. By the weak, when they condemn the free conduct of their stronger brethren. 3. By the strong, when they give offence to the consciences of the weak. II. Must be protected. 1. Against what? (1) Reproach. (2) In consequence of— (a) Offence. (b) Misuse. 2. How? (1) By not laying too much stress on matters unessential. (2) By a supreme regard for those things that are indispensable. 3. Why? Thereby— (1) We serve Christ. (2) Win the approbation of men. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Misrepresented goodness Some men seek to impress the world by their goodness when they really have no
- 132. goodness. Such werethe Pharisees. But the apostle has in view men who have goodness, but who do themselves injustice. We need to be careful about the manifestation of our religion, as well as about the reality of it. It is possible to be very good, and yet so to act as to put men out of conceit with religion itself. There is a book entitled “Roses: How to grow and How to Show them.” Anybody might say, “Ah! the question is, how to grow them. Bring your flower into fulness of glory, and it will show itself and win the prize.” But it is just for want of this particular skill that many a clever grower has missed the prize. So it is with character. Our good to be evil spoken of. I. By sadness. A serious spirit is a true spirit, and one we should ever cherish. But how easy it is to turn it into sourness, and thus make a grand character repulsive! With all our solemnity there ought to be cheerfulness. A man who is all laughter counts for little, a man who is all groans counts for less; but he who lets a hopeful spirit shine through all his religion does much to recommend his faith. II. By narrowness. The world often miscalls a noble self-denial strait-lacedness, and we must be prepared for it. But there is sometimes self-denial that is really narrowness, and that damages the reputation of good men. This illiberality of mind sometimes reveals itself in an orthodoxy that prevents a man from looking calmly and boldly at religious questions, sometimes in a harsh, exclusive denominationalism; sometimes in an asceticism which makes a man intolerant of recreations; sometimes in a fear of worldly conformity. Let us beware of this suspicious, conceited, uncharitable spirit. Let us hold a theology as broad as judgment, mercy, and truth. Christ stood at the utmost remove from the pettifogging Pharisee. He was the ideal Catholic. Let it be thus with us. III. By hardness. 1. You may see this in business men sometimes. A Christian trader is in all things severely conscientious. And yet nobody likes him. The reason is his conscientiousness looks very much like selfishness, and is currently reckoned as such. Now, he might be all that a smart business man needs to be, and yet be popular into the bargain. He wants to understand the by-play of life—how to soften the severe rigid laws of the business sphere with little acts of forbearance, patience, generosity. 2. And you may see this hardness in family life. It was said of the mother of one of our most distinguished women that she did her duty to her children, made sacrifices for their welfare, and yet there was no sympathy in it all. And the gifted daughter grew up feeling that the lack of warmth and love in her early training was a lifelong loss. Oh, what a grand thing is graciousness in all our spirit and conduct! Some excellent people are sadly wanting here. They do not know how to show their roses— they thrust the posy into your face and you are more scratched with the thorns than regaled by the fragrance. We often hear about “diamonds in the rough”; there are Christians after that order, but it is a serious defect to be in the rough—Christ’s diamonds, like Himself, ought to be full of beauty and grace. IV. By unseasonableness. Character is timeliness, a fine perception of what is becoming to the persons, to the place, to the hour. If we do not attend to this our mirthfulness may be reckoned levity, our strictness intolerance, our liberality weakness, our large- mindedness licence. We have need to pray constantly that “we may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom,” etc.; so shall we serve the apple of gold in the basket of silver. Let us not despise this matter. Do not say, Let us get the solid thing, and never mind the rest. A jeweller works altogether with gold and gems; but it is not enough to mix these anyhow. So we, as Christians, must be careful how we arrange our precious material, for of the virtues we may make an eyesore or a picture. We must work with
- 133. judgment, sympathy, courtesy,or our good will be evil spoken of. (W. L. Watkinson.) Reputation I. Nothing is more easily destroyed than a good reputation. You may be years, a life-time even, in building it up, and yet a moment, a single act, may suffice to destroy it. A breath of scandal may blast it, an indiscretion may tarnish it, a “dead fly” in the ointment may make it offensive. How sedulously should we guard it! II. Nothing on earth is so valuable or so potent as a good name. Wealth beside it is dross. Office, station, fame, are nothing worth in comparison. Talent, learning, and gifts of oratory, pale and fade in the presence of it. 1. For our own sake we should sacredly guard it—for it is our crown jewel, the one potential element of usefulness we possess. 2. For society’s sake we should do nothing, omit nothing, that will tend to obscure it. For Christ’s sake and the Church’s sake, we are bound to guard it as we would guard life itself: to wound it is to wound Christ in the house of His friends, and bring reproach upon His Church. Oh, it is these tarnished reputations, these soiled garments, these discredited names, in the household of faith, that so weaken the testimony of the Church and fill the mouths of scoffers and infidels. (Homiletic Monthly.) The importance of a good man taking care of his reputation Character and reputation are not convertible terms. 1. A bad man may have a good reputation. He may have the art of so concealing the reigning elements of his character as to give to his compeers a false impression. Hence, in all circles there are counterfeits that pass for true coin. The miser in heart passes for a philanthropist; the sensualist in heart for a man of chastity. 2. A good man may have a bad reputation. Genuine saints have often been regarded as great sinners. Against this the text is a warning. I. There is a danger in this, arising— 1. From some things in society. (1) Its envy. All men instinctively feel that goodness is an excellency, and those who have it not naturally envy those who possess it. The ugly envy beauty, the poor wealth, the obscure fame, the depraved excellence. The delight of envy is ever to mal-represent its object. (2) Its self-complacency. All men desire to be on good terms with themselves, and to be regarded by society as worthy of honour. But the virtues of the good flashing on the lives of the corrupt tend to destroy this. A bad man in the presence of a good man must feel self-condemned. (3) Its stupidity. The great bulk of society are so dull in relation to spiritual virtues that moral distinctions are disregarded by them, and they often confound good with evil. 2. From some things in the good man himself. The more goodness a man has in him,
- 134. the less suspicioushe is, the more confiding, and the more regardless of conventional proprieties. He is natural, and like all natural objects shows himself as he is. He is likely to care no more for what men think of him than trees for the opinion of the birds, or flowers for the opinion of spectators. Great goodness is constantly making conventional mistakes and trampling artificial properties underfoot. II. There is an evil in this. A man’s power to do good depends greatly upon the faith that society has in his goodness. If society suspects his genuineness or disinterestedness, he may preach like Paul, but he will accomplish but little good. Hence it has often happened that truly good men and powerful preachers have, by disregarding certain recognised proprieties of society, destroyed their usefulness for ever. Conclusion: Hence, because of this danger and evil, let us walk “circumspectly,” not as fools, but as wise; let us avoid the very appearance of evil, knowing that the loss of reputation tends to disqualify us for usefulness. (D. Thomas, D.D.) On the imprudent way of discharging sacred duties Perhaps there never was a time since the world began in which so much was done for the cause of God and of truth, as at the present. Yet it becomes us to rejoice with trembling, and to act with care. In proportion to our zeal, is the enemy’s malignity; while we act, the world watches, and connects the cause with the demeanour and temper of those who have espoused it. Sacred duties may be discharged in such a way as that they may be evil spoken of, and neutralised completely in their influence and effect. Take the case of— I. Social prayer. Our good may be evil spoken of— 1. When the prayer-meeting is left without some wise and judicious leader. 2. When they are converted into anything but what they profess to be—meetings for prayer—when the time is much occupied in exhortation, or discussion. 3. When the language employed in prayer is pompous and inflated. 4. When undue familiarity with God is used in prayer. 5. When prayers are spun out to an unreasonable and wearisome length. Whitfield once said to a good man who had fallen into this error, “Sir, you first prayed me into a good frame, and then you prayed me out of it.” 6. When much time is occupied in prayer with such petitions as are only applicable to the case of the leader. II. The visitation of the sick. This duty is improperly discharged. 1. When the conversation is confined entirely, or chiefly, to the disease under which the patient labours. 2. When an indiscriminate offer is made of the consolations of the gospel, which belong to believers only. 3. When special reference is not had to the peculiar circumstances of the case in prayer. 4. When there is harshness or severity in the manner of address. III. Domestic religion and instruction. 1. Where there are no stated periods for the observance of family religion and
- 135. instruction, but itis left to convenience, or caprice—to inclination, or to chance. 2. When the reading and explanation of the Scriptures do not form a great part of domestic instruction. 3. When the duty is hurried over with carelessness and haste. 4. When there are no inquiries made, as to their increase in the knowledge and understanding of Divine things. IV. Active employment in religious and benevolent institutions. Such as Bible associations and Sunday Schools. Conclusion: Observe some general principles, the observance of which are of importance in efforts to do good. 1. Look well to your motives. If they are wrong, your conduct cannot be acceptable to God, nor is it likely to do your Christian profession credit before men. 2. See that your spirit and temper are always suitable to the character you sustain, and the objects which you have in view. 3. Do as much good as you possibly can in private. 4. Never talk much in what you do, or of what you do. Let your works, and not your words, praise you in the gate—and rather imitate the deep and silent river, that pursues its noiseless way, and is only known by the fertility and luxuriance it diffuses in its course—than the impetuous brook, that attracts the eye by its clamour, only to behold its shallowness. 5. Persevere in all you undertake, and then your activity will not be attributed to the mere impulse of the moment, but look more like the result of conviction and principle. 6. Let there be a cheerful alacrity in all you do, that it may appear to spring from a willing mind, and be esteemed rather your relaxation than your work. 7. Avoid the introduction of your own particular religious tenets. 8. Never do evil that good may come. 9. Seek to do good, abstracted from all the evil which may be connected with it. 10. Never refrain from doing good, for fear of its being evil spoken of. 11. Refer all that is good in what you do to God, and all that is evil to yourselves. 12. Cherish an abiding sense of your own helplessness, and ever rely on the power of God for strength, the Spirit of God for direction, and the work of Christ for acceptance. 13. Keep your great account in view—and the Lord grant you may find mercy of the Lord in that day. (T. Raffles, LL.D.)
- 136. 17For the kingdomof God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, BAR ES, “For the kingdom of God - For an explanation of this phrase, see the note at Mat_3:2. Here it means that the uniquenesses of the kingdom of God, or of the Church of Christ on earth, do not consist in observing the distinctions between meats and drinks, it was true that by these things the Jews had been particularly characterized, but the Christian church was to be distinguished in a different manner. Is not - Does not consist in, or is not distinguished by. Meat and drink - In observing distinctions between different kinds of food, or making such observances a matter of conscience as the Jews did. Moses did not prescribe any particular drink or prohibit any, but the Nazarites abstained from wine and all kinds of strong liquors; and it is not improbable that the Jews had invented some distinctions on this subject which they judged to be of importance. Hence, it is said in Col_2:16, “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink;” compare 1Co_8:8; 1Co_4:20. But righteousness - This word here means “virtue, integrity,” a faithful discharge of all the duties which we owe to God or to our fellow-men. It means that the Christian must so live as to be appropriately denominated a righteous man, and not a man whose whole attention is absorbed by the mere ceremonies and outward forms of religion. To produce this, we are told, was the main design, and the principal teaching of the gospel; Tit_2:12; Compare Rom_8:13; 1Pe_2:11. Thus, it is said 1Jo_2:29, “Everyone that doeth righteousness is born of God;” 1Jo_3:10, “Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God;” compare 1Jo_3:7; 1Co_15:34; 2Co_3:9; 2Co_6:7, 2Co_6:14; Eph_5:9; Eph_6:14; 1Ti_6:11; 1Pe_2:24; Eph_4:24. He that is a righteous man, whose characteristic it is to lead a holy life, is a Christian. If his great aim is to do the will of God, and if he seeks to discharge with fidelity all his duties to God and man, he is renewed. On that righteousness he will not “depend” for salvation Phi_3:8-9, but he will regard this character and this disposition as evidence that he is a Christian, and that the Lord Jesus is made unto him” wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;” 1Co_1:30. And peace - This word, in this place, does not refer to the internal “peace” and happiness which the Christian has in his own mind (compare the notes at Rom_5:1); but to peace or concord in opposition to “contention” among brethren. The tendency and design of the kingdom of God is to produce concord and love, and to put an end to alienation and strife. Even though, therefore, there might be ground for the opinions which some cherished in regard to rites, yet it was of more importance to maintain peace than obstinately to press those matters at the expense of strife and contention. That the tendency of the gospel is to promote peace, and to induce people to lay aside all causes of contention and bitter strife, is apparent from the following passages of the New Testament; 1Co_7:15; 1Co_14:33; Gal_5:22; Eph_4:3; 1Th_5:13; 2Ti_2:22; Jam_3:18; Mat_5:9; Eph_4:31-32; Col_3:8; Joh_13:34-35; Joh_17:21-23. This is the second evidence of piety on which Christians should examine their hearts - a disposition to promote the peace of Jerusalem; Psa_122:6; Psa_37:11. A contentious, quarrelsome spirit; a disposition to magnify trifles; to make the Shibboleth of party an occasion of alienation, and heart-burning, and discord; to sow dissensions on account of unimportant points of doctrine or of discipline, is full proof that there is no attachment to Him who is the Prince of peace. Such a disposition does infinite dishonor to the cause
- 137. of religion, andperhaps has done more to retard its progress than all other causes put together. Contentions commonly arise from some small matter in doctrine, in dress, in ceremonies; and often the smaller the matter the more fierce the controversy, until he spirit of religion disappears, and desolation comes over the face of Zion: “The Spirit, like a peaceful dove, Flies from the realms of noise and strife.” And joy - This refers, doubtless, to the “personal” happiness produced in the mind by the influence of the gospel; see the notes at Rom_5:1-5. In the Holy Ghost - Produced “by” the Holy Spirit; Rom_5:5; compare Gal_5:22-23. CLARKE, “For the kingdom of God - That holy religion which God has sent from heaven, and which be intends to make the instrument of establishing a counterpart of the kingdom of glory among men: see on Mat_3:2 (note). Is not meat and drink - It consists not in these outward and indifferent things. It neither particularly enjoins nor particularly forbids such. But righteousness - Pardon of sin, and holiness of heart and life. And peace - In the soul, from a sense of God’s mercy; peace regulating, ruling, and harmonizing the heart. And joy in the Holy Ghost - Solid spiritual happiness; a joy which springs from a clear sense of God’s mercy; the love of God being shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. In a word, it is happiness brought into the soul by the Holy Spirit, and maintained there by the same influence. This is a genuine counterpart of heaven; righteousness without sin, Peace without inward disturbance, Joy without any kind of mental agony or distressing fear. See the note on Mat_3:2. GILL, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink,.... Neither the kingdom of glory, nor the ultimate glory and happiness of the saints in the other world, is attained to by any such things; for neither eating and drinking, nor not eating and drinking, can recommend to the divine favour, or give a meetness for heaven, or a right unto it; see 1Co_8:8, nor does the kingdom of grace, the principle of grace, lie in such things, nor in anything that is external; nor does the Gospel, or Gospel church state, which frequently go under this name of the kingdom of God, consist of such things as the ceremonial and the legal dispensation did, but the Gospel and the dispensation of grace are opposed unto them; see Heb_9:10. But righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The kingdom of glory, which is the kingdom of God, because of his preparing, giving, calling to, and putting into the possession of, is attained unto by righteousness; not the righteousness of men, but the righteousness of Christ imputed by God, and received by faith; and through peace made by the blood of Christ, and rejoicing in him, without having any confidence in the flesh, which is a branch of the Spirit's grace in regeneration. The kingdom of grace, or the governing principle of grace in the soul, and which is of God's implanting there,
- 138. lies in righteousnessand true holiness, in which the new man is created; in truth and uprightness in the inward parts, where the laws of God are put and written; and in peace of conscience, arising from the blood and righteousness of Christ; and in that spiritual joy and comfort the Holy Ghost produces, by leading to a sight of Christ, and an interest in him and his atonement. The Gospel, which gives an account both of the kingdom of grace and of glory, reveals the righteousness of Christ, and teaches men to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present evil world: it is a publication of peace by the blood of Christ; it calls men to peace, to cultivate peace one among another, and to seek those things which make for it; and when it comes in power, is attended with joy in the Holy Ghost, and is the means of increasing it; and this is another reason, persuading to Christian forbearance, in the use of things indifferent. HE RY, “Because the stress of Christianity is not to be laid upon these things, nor are they at all essential to religion, either on the one side or on the other. This is his reason (Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18), which is reducible to this branch of exhortation. Why should you spend your zeal either for or against those things which are so minute and inconsiderable in religion? Some make it a reason why, in case of offence likely to be taken, we should refrain the use of our Christian liberty; but it seems directed in general against that heat about those things which he observed on both sides. The kingdom of God is not meat, etc. Observe here, [1.] The nature of true Christianity, what it is: it is here called, The kingdom of God; it is a religion intended to rule us, a kingdom: it stands in a true and hearty subjection to God's power and dominion. The gospel dispensation is in a special manner called the kingdom of God, in distinction from the legal dispensation, Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17. First, It is not meat and drink: it does not consist either in using or in abstaining from such and such meats and drinks. Christianity gives no rule in that case, either in one way or another. The Jewish religion consisted much in meats and drinks (Heb_9:10), abstaining from some meats religiously (Lev_11:2), eating other meats religiously, as in several of the sacrifices, part of which were to be eaten before the Lord: but all those appointments are now abolished and are no more, Col_2:21, Col_2:22. The matter is left at large. Every creature of God is good, 1Ti_4:4. So, as to other things, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (Gal_5:6; Gal_6:15; 1Co_7:19), it is not being of this party and persuasion, of this or the other opinion in minor things, that will recommend us to God. It will not be asked at the great day, “Who ate flesh, and who ate herbs?” “Who kept holy days, and who did not?” Nor will it be asked, “Who was conformist and who was non- conformist?” But it will be asked, “Who feared God and worked righteousness, and who did not?” Nothing more destructive to true Christianity than placing it in modes, and forms, and circumstantials, which eat out the essentials. Secondly, It is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. These are some of the essentials of Christianity, things in which all the people of God are agreed, in the pursuit of which we must spend our zeal, and which we must mind with an excelling care. Righteousness, peace, and joy, are very comprehensive words; and each of them includes much, both of the foundation and the superstructure of religion. Might I limit the sense of them, it should be thus: - As to God, our great concern is righteousness - to appear before him justified by the merit of Christ's death, sanctified by the Spirit of his grace; for the righteous Lord loveth righteousness. As to our brethren, it is peace - to live in peace and love, and charity with them, following peace with all men: Christ came into the world to be the great peace- maker. As to ourselves, it is joy in the Holy Ghost - that spiritual joy which is wrought by the blessed Spirit in the hearts of believers, which respects God as their reconciled Father and heaven as their expected home. Next to our compliance with God, the life of religion
- 139. consists in ourcomplacency in him; to delight ourselves always in the Lord. Surely we serve a good Master, who makes peace and joy so essential to our religion. Then and then only we may expect peace and joy in the Holy Ghost when the foundation is laid in righteousness, Isa_32:17. Thirdly, It is in these things to serve Christ (Rom_14:18), to do all this out of respect to Christ himself as our Master, to his will as our rule and to his glory as our end. That which puts an acceptableness upon all our good duties is a regard to Christ in the doing of them. We are to serve his interests and designs in the world, which are in the first place to reconcile us one to another. What is Christianity but the serving of Christ? And we may well afford to serve him who for us and for our salvation took upon him the form of a servant. [2.] The advantages of it. He that duly observeth these things, First, Is acceptable to God. God is well pleased with such a one, though he be not in every thing just of our length. He has the love and favour of God; his person, his performances, are accepted of God, and we need no more to make us happy. If God now accepts thy works, thou mayest eat thy bread with joy. Those are most pleasing to God that are best pleased with him; and they are those that abound most in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. Secondly, He is approved of men - of all wise and good men, and the opinion of others is not to be regarded. The persons and things which are acceptable to God should be approved of us. Should not we be pleased with that which God is pleased with? What is it to be sanctified, but to be of God's mind? Observe, The approbation of men is not to be slighted; for we must provide things honest in the sight of all men, and study those things that are lovely and of good report: but the acceptance of God is to be desired and aimed at in the first place, because, sooner or later, God will bring all the world to be of his mind. 3. Another rule here given is this, that in these doubtful things every one not only may, but must, walk according to the light that God hath given him. This is laid down Rom_14:5, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; that is, “Practise according to your own judgment in these things, and leave others to do so too. Do not censure the practice of others; let them enjoy their own opinion; if they be persuaded in their own mind that they ought to do so and so, do not condemn them, but, if your sober sentiments be otherwise, do not make their practice a rule to you, any more than you must prescribe yours as a rule to them. Take heed of acting contrary to the dictates of a doubting conscience. First be persuaded that what you do is lawful, before you venture to do it.” In doubtful things, it is good keeping on the sure side of the hedge. If a weak Christian doubts whether it be lawful to eat flesh, while he remains under that doubt he had best forbear, till he be fully persuaded in his own mind. We must not pin our faith upon any one's sleeve, nor make the practice of others our rule; but follow the dictates of our own understanding. To this purport he argues, Rom_14:14 and Rom_14:23, which two verses explain this, and give us a rule not to act against the dictates, (1.) Of a mistaken conscience, Rom_14:14. If a thing be indifferent, so that it is not in itself a sin not to do it, if we really think it a sin to do it it is to us a sin, though not to others, because we act against our consciences, though mistaken and misinformed. He specifies the case in hand, concerning the difference of meats. Observe, [1.] His own clearness in this matter. “I know and am persuaded - I am fully persuaded, I am acquainted with my Christian liberty, and am satisfied in it, without any doubt or scruple, that there is nothing unclean of itself, that is, no kind of meat that lies under any ceremonial uncleanness, nor is forbidden to be eaten, if it be food proper for human bodies.” Several kinds of meat were forbidden to the Jews, that in that, as in other things, they might be a peculiar and separate people, Lev_11:44; Deu_14:2, Deu_14:3. Sin had brought a curse upon the whole creation: Cursed is the ground for thy sake; the use of the creatures and dominion over them were forfeited, so that to man
- 140. they were allunclean (Tit_1:15), in token of which God in the ceremonial law prohibited the use of some, to show what he might have done concerning all; but now that Christ has removed the curse the matter is set at large again, and that prohibition is taken away. Therefore Paul says that he was persuaded by the Lord Jesus, not only as the author of that persuasion, but as the ground of it; it was built upon the efficacy of Christ's death, which removed the curse, took off the forfeiture, and restored our right to the creature in general, and consequently put a period to that particular distinguishing prohibition. So that now there is nothing unclean of itself, every creature of God is good; nothing common: so the margin, ouden koinon; nothing which is common to others to eat, from the use of which the professors of religion are restrained: nothing profane; in this sense the Jews used the word common. It is explained by the word akatharton, Act_10:14, nothing common or unclean. It was not only from the revelation made to Peter in this matter, but from the tenour and tendency of the whole gospel, and from the manifest design of Christ's death in general, that Paul learned to count nothing common or unclean. This was Paul's own clearness, and he practised accordingly. [2.] But here is a caution he gives to those who had not that clearness in this matter which he had: To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, though it be his error, yet to him it is unclean. This particular case, thus determined, gives a general rule, That he who does a thing which he verily believes to be unlawful, however the thing be in itself, to him it is a sin. This arises from that unchangeable law of our creation, which is, that our wills, in all their choices, motions, and directions, should follow the dictates of our understandings. This is the order of nature, which order is broken if the understanding (though misguided) tell us that such a thing is a sin, and yet we will do it. This is a will to do evil; for, if it appears to us to be sin, there is the same pravity and corruption of the will in the doing of it as if really it were a sin; and therefore we ought not to do it. Not that it is in the power of any man's conscience to alter the nature of the action in itself, but only as to himself. It must be understood likewise with this proviso, though men's judgments and opinions may make that which is good in itself to become evil to them, yet they cannot make that which is evil in itself to become good, either in itself or to them. If a man were verily persuaded (it is Dr. Sanderson's instance, sermon on Rom_14:23) that it were evil to ask his father's blessing, that mispersuasion would make it become evil to him: but, if he should be as verily persuaded that it were good to curse his father, this would not make it become good. The Pharisees taught people to plead conscience, when they made corban an excuse for denying relief to their parents, Mat_15:5, Mat_15:6. But this would not serve any more than Paul's erroneous conscience would justify his rage against Christianity (Act_26:9), or theirs, Joh_16:2. (2.) Nor must we act against the dictates of a doubting conscience. In those indifferent things which we are sure it is no sin not to do, and yet are not clear that it is lawful to do them, we must not do them while we continue under those doubts; for he that doubteth is damned if he eat (Rom_14:23), that is, it turns into sin to him; he is damned, katakekritai - he is condemned of his own conscience, because he eateth not of faith, because he does that which he is not fully persuaded he may lawfully do. He is not clear that it is lawful for him to eat swine's flesh (suppose), and yet is drawn, notwithstanding his doubts, to eat it, because he sees others do it, because he would gratify his appetite with it, or because he would not be reproached for his singularity. Here his own heart cannot but condemn him as a transgressor. our rule is, to walk as far as we have attained, not further, Phi_3:15, Phi_3:16. - For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Taking it in general, it is the same with that of the apostle (Heb_11:6), Without faith it is impossible to please God. Whatever we do in religion, it will not turn to any good account, except we
- 141. do it froma principle of faith, with a believing regard to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, and to the righteousness of Christ as our plea. Here it seems to be taken more strictly; whatever is not of faith (that is, whatever is done while we are not clearly persuaded of the lawfulness of it), is a sin against conscience. He that will venture to do that which his own conscience suggests to him to be unlawful, when it is not so in itself, will by a like temptation be brought to do that which his conscience tells him is unlawful when it is really so. The spirit of a man is the candle of the Lord, and it is a dangerous thing to debauch and put a force upon conscience, though it be under a mistake. This seems to be the meaning of that aphorism, which sounds somewhat darkly (Rom_14:22), Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows. Many a one allows himself in practice to do that which yet in his judgment and conscience he condemns himself for - allows it for the sake of the pleasure, profit, or credit of it - allows it in conformity to the custom; and yet whilst he does it, and pleas for it, his own heart gives him the lie, and his conscience condemns him for it. Now, happy is the man who so orders his conversation as not in any action to expose himself to the challenges and reproaches of his own conscience - that does not make his own heart his adversary, as he must needs do who does that which he is not clear he may lawfully do. He is happy that has peace and quietness within, for the testimony of conscience will be a special cordial in troublesome times. Though men condemn us, it is well enough if our own hearts condemn us not, 1Jo_3:21. JAMISO , “For the kingdom of God — or, as we should say, Religion; that is, the proper business and blessedness for which Christians are formed into a community of renewed men in thorough subjection to God (compare 1Co_4:20). is not meat and drink — “eating and drinking” but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost — a beautiful and comprehensive division of living Christianity. The first - “righteousness” - has respect to God, denoting here “rectitude,” in its widest sense (as in Mat_6:33); the second - “peace” - has respect to our neighbors, denoting “concord” among brethren (as is plain from Rom_14:19; compare Eph_4:3; Col_3:14, Col_3:15); the third - “joy in the Holy Ghost” - has respect to ourselves. This phrase, “joy in the Holy Ghost,” represents Christians as so thinking and feeling under the workings of the Holy Ghost, that their joy may be viewed rather as that of the blessed Agent who inspires it than their own (compare 1Th_1:6). God reigns now in the lives of those characterized by these three things. So forget debating on all sorts of trivialities and get focused on you own internal spirit so that it conforms to that of Christ who exhibited these perfectly. God’s reign is not seen in one’s eating habits, but in his heart and the spirit by which he lives and related to others in the body. If you are full of bitter fighting over all sorts of issues of the flesh and do not have a love, peace and joy in your relationship to others, then you are out of God’s will. It is not what goes in, as Jesus said, but what comes out that really reveals the spiritual state of the person. Focus on the internals and not the externals, for this is almost always going to lead to legalism. MACARTHUR The kingdom is the sphere of salvation; it is God ruling in the hearts of those who believe in Christ. We all belong to it when we're saved. The essence of that kingdom
- 142. is not meatand drink. We haven't been saved to promote externals or fight over non-essentials--though sad to say we've done a wonderful job of it. I believe fighting over non-essentials has become widespread Christian recreation, and is probably a key reason that many people reject the gospel. That's sad because believers who fight over those things have missed the point of the kingdom. righteousness, When you are living right you have peace, and when you have peace you have joy. All begin with the right spirit. The issue of the kingdom is righteous living--holy, obedient, God-honoring lives conformed to God's will. My chief concern is not liberty, but holiness. That's what the watching world is looking for. I want to be filled with the fruits of righteousness and wear the breastplate of righteousness. MACARTHUR STEDMA I heard of a church some time ago that got into an unholy argument over whether they ought to have a Christmas tree at their Christmas program. Some thought that a tree was fine; others thought it was a pagan practice, and they got so angry at each other that they actually got into fist fights over it. One group dragged the tree out, then the other group dragged it back in. They ended up suing each other in a court of law and, of course, the whole thing was spread in the newspapers for the entire community to read. What else could non-Christians conclude other than that the gospel consists of whether you have a Christmas tree or not? They made such an important issue over it, they were ready to physically attack one another. Paul says that is utterly wrong. The main point of the Christian faith is not eating or drinking or Christmas trees. The main point is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. A non-Christian, looking at a Christian, ought to see these things, not wrangling and disputing and fighting and law courts, but righteousness. You have seen that word righteousness many times in Romans, and you know what it means. It means God's gift of a sense of worth about yourself. It means that, because of the death of Jesus on your behalf, you are loved by him; you are accepted by him; you are a valuable person in his sight. In fact, he cheerfully and delightedly calls you his beloved child. That is righteousness, and from it, when we understand that, comes a sense of dignity, a sense of self-respect. That is what the world ought to see. The world ought to see you confident as to who you are, with that kind of underlying assurance that is without conceit; that shows you have a basis of self- acceptance that the world knows nothing about. peace Henry VanDyke wrote, With eager heart and will on fire,
- 143. I fought towin by great desire, Peace shall be mine, I said, but life Grew bitter in the weary strife. My soul was tired, and my pride Was wounded deep: to heaven I cried, God grand me peace or I must die. The dumb stars glittered no reply. Broken at last, I bowed my head, Forgetting all myself, and said, Whatever comes, His will be done. And in that moment peace was won. The kingdom is all about having tranquil relationships with God and your fellow man. Our peace is exemplified by our caring and our unity. The tranquility of our relationships can have a profound testimony. When the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22- 23)--including love, joy, and peace--are displayed in our lives, the watching world sees Christianity as something desirable. Righteousness means I seek to honor God; peace means I seek to have harmony with my brother. MACARTHUR STEDMA The second thing the world ought to see is peace. That comes across visibly as a kind of calmness, an inner core of unflappability that is undisturbed by the minor irritations of the moment. It is that quiet and calm assurance that God is present in the situation; that he will work it out for his glory, and therefore, we need not get upset or angry, or vindictive toward someone. It is hard for the world to get that impression of peace and calmness if they see two people screaming at one another over what they disagree on. That does not look very calm. The important thing, therefore, is that you manifest that gift of God, which is peace. joy Someone who is right with God and at peace with his brother will have joy. It's the personal joy of knowing God and experiencing forgiveness, grace, mercy, and love. It's the happy life of salvation that rejoices in everything. We want the watching world to see Christians as those who are righteous, at peace, and filled with joy. We will be that way when we exercise self-sacrificial love at the expense of exercising our liberties. The strong must move down to the level of the weak brother or sister and respect their weaknesses until they can be nurtured into strengths. There are things we are perfectly free to do that we must choose not to do to demonstrate to the watching world that the kingdom is not a celebration of our rights. When the world sees lives marked by righteousness--when it sees people with integrity and honesty, who are just and virtuous--that is a loud testimony to the reality of Christianity. Even in the fallenness of man there is enough of the residual
- 144. image of Godfor the unregenerate to long for what is unobtainable to them. Peaceful relationships are foreign to the world because the world is full of chaos. When the world sees deep, profound joy in the Holy Spirit, it sees the heart of kingdom living. Those attractive elements can bring people to Christ. MACARTHUR STEDMA The third element is joy. These three always go together: righteousness, peace, and joy. They are gifts of God. They do not come from you; they come from him. Joy is that delight in life that always finds life worthwhile, even though it may be filled with problems. Joy, in a Christian, does not come from circumstances. I was down south a couple of weeks ago, and I met a lady who has been lying in her bed for 13 years. She has arthritis so bad that her joints are disconnected and she cannot even raise her hands. But the smile on her face, the joy that is evident in her, is an outstanding witness to the fact that joy of this kind is a gift of God. It comes out of relationship, not out of circumstance. She has a tremendous ministry to the community around her because of that. Paul is saying that if that is what you have discovered, if that is the center of your focus and interest, then you can easily give up some momentary indulgence in a pleasure that you enjoy and are free to participate in, if it is going to bother someone, or upset someone, or make them move beyond their own conscience. Sometimes, when you enter a main highway, you see a sign that says "YIELD." ow, I would not suggest that you steal one of those, but it would be good if you could make one and put it up in your dining room. That is a Christian philosophy -- to yield, to give way. Do not insist on your rights under these circumstances HOKE For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (v. 17) Here we have the central truth of this passage of Scripture. It is, in fact, a revelation from God concerning His kingdom. Simply put, it reveals that the Kingdom of God is not an external kingdom, but an internal one. In other words, the Kingdom of God is not revealed simply in what you do, but in what you are. The Kingdom of God does not consist in outward conduct, but in inward character. To the discerning, it should be apparent that there is a linkage between what we are and what we do. The nature of a person certainly controls his behavior. Take the comparison and contrast between a cat and a pig. Without any education at all, they act very differently. It is their nature. If you take a cat and place it in the center of a mud puddle, its immediate reaction is to get out of the mud and clean itself off. Most of us have watched a cat meticulously clean itself from top to bottom with great care. On the other hand, if you take a pig and place it in that same mud puddle, instead of leaping out, it will just roll right over and wallow in it. It is as if you have thrown the cat into hell and the pig into heaven. They react differently because they
- 145. have different natures.What they are determines what they do. And so it is with us, what we are determines what we do. So, the externals can reflect what is going on inside, but it is important for us to see the distinction. If we do not see the distinction, we will come to some very wrong conclusions. While the external may reflect the internal, it can also mislead us. You see, it is possible to do right and not be right. Many people do good works out of the wrong motivation. Some people are benevolent because they want recognition for being so. Some people do good deeds because they want people to notice. It is possible to do a great many religions works and not be a Christian. So the old saying is true, that you cannot tell a book by its cover. ow, admittedly, if one is a Christian, one should be moved to do good deeds. But the problem is we cannot see inside the heart. Only God can. And Christianity is a matter of the heart. Righteousness, peace and joy: These are the things Christianity is made of. This is what our text teaches is the essence of the Kingdom of God. When it speaks of righteousness, it speaks not of perfection, but of right standing with God. When we accept the finished work of Christ on the Cross, we are justified by faith. Being justified by faith makes us right with God. As we submit to and surrender to Christ, the Bible teaches His righteousness is imputed to us. That means that His righteousness is counted as ours. We are then clothed in His righteousness. We become His. This righteousness is not something we have earned or attained, it is His righteousness. It is not something of which we can boast, for we do not deserve it. It is given to us as a free gift. We become righteous, not by our works, but by a complete surrender to Christ. Consequently, we receive the peace of God as a result of our surrender to Christ. We receive both peace with God and the peace of God. Peace with God means that the battle is over. o longer are we fighting against God, now we are cooperating with Him. The peace of God means that we are at peace with ourselves. We can trust in Him in the midst of even turbulent circumstances and know that He cares for us. Then the joy comes. Having surrendered to Jesus Christ, we come to delight in His presence. Those who truly know Jesus Christ ought to be excited about their relationship with Him. I liken it to that experience of falling in love. When we met that certain someone, we were excited about the possibility of spending time with that one. We delighted to be in their presence. The sight of them caused our pulse to quicken. We were in love. It is a glorious thing. And the call to the Christian is to be in love with Jesus. We should delight in His presence. We should be excited about Him. The joy of the Lord should flood our souls. Our cups should overflow with the wonder of knowing Jesus. Some today may need to say with David of old, "Lord, restore the joy of thy salvation." Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit — that is the stuff of the Kingdom. CALVI , “17.For the kingdom of God, etc. He now, on the other hand, teaches us, that we can without loss abstain from the use of our liberty, because the kingdom of God does not consist in such things. Those things indeed, which are necessary either to build up or preserve the kingdom of God, are by no means to be neglected, whatever offenses may hence follow: but if for love’ sake it be lawful to abstain from meat, while God’ honor is uninjured, while Christ’ kingdom suffers no harm, while religion is not hindered, then they are not to be borne with, who for meat’ sake disturb
- 146. the Church. Heuses similar arguments in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: “” he says, “ the stomach, and the stomach for meat; but God will destroy both,” (1Co_6:13 :) again, “ we eat, we shall not abound,” (1Co_8:8.) By these words he meant briefly to show, that meat and drink were things too worthless, that on their ACCOUNT the course of the gospel should be impeded. But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink; not for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of showing, that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words a summary of what it is; namely, that we, being well assured, have peace with God, and possess real joy of heart through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But as I have said, these few things he has accommodated to his present SUBJECT . He indeed who is become partaker of true righteousness, enjoys a great and an invaluable good, even a calm joy of conscience; and he who haspeace with God, what can he desire more? (430) By CONNECTING peace and joy together, he seems to me to express the character of this joy; for however torpid the reprobate may be, or however they may elevate themselves, yet the conscience is not rendered calm and joyful, except when it feels God to be pacified and propitious to it; and there is no solid joy but what proceeds from this peace. And though it was necessary, when mention was made of these things, that the Spirit should have been declared as the author; yet he meant in this place indirectly to oppose the Spirit to external things, that we might know, that the things which belong to the kingdom of God CONTINUE complete to us without the use of meats. (430) What is here said is no doubt true of the kingdom of God; but by considering what is afterwards said in the two following verses, we cannot well accede to this exposition. Righteousness, peace, and joy, mentioned here, are things acceptable to God and approved by men: they must then be things apparent and visible, which men see and observe; and to follow “ things of peace,” refers to the conduct. “” then must mean here the doing of what is right and just towards one another; “” concord and unanimity, as opposed to discord and contentions; “” the fruit of this peaceable state, a cheering delight, a mutual rejoicing, instead of the sorrow and grief occasioned by discord; and these come “ the Holy Spirit” and are produced by him; and they are not the semblances of such virtues and graces, presented in some instances by false religions. See Gal_5:22. [Doddridge ], [Stuart ], and [Chalmers ] have viewed the passage in this light, though the latter, as well as [Scott ], seemed inclined to combine the two views: but this is to mix up things together unnecessarily, and to destroy the harmony of the context. — Ed. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. God’s kingdom I. The description given of the kingdom of God. 1. The import of the term. Christ’s spiritual kingdom established on earth—His dominion over His redeemed people, having its seat in the soul, and extending over the entire life. This is a kingdom totally diverse from all others—one not in word or
- 147. mere outward form,but in soul-subduing, life-transforming power, one that ultimately brings every thought into harmony with Christ’s holy mind and will. 2. Its peculiar characteristics. (1) Negatively. It is “not meat or drink,” i.e., it does not consist in the observance of distinctions between different kinds of food and drink, or in any merely external forms. (2) Positively. It is— (a) Holy conformity to God—“righteousness.” (b) A mild and gentle demeanour—“peace.” (c) Spiritual gladness of heart—“joy.” (d) The presence and power of the Holy Spirit as producing all these. II. The character of the true spiritual service of Christ (Rom_14:18). Observe— 1. The indispensable requisites of Christ’s service. In order to serve Christ, we must possess and manifest righteousness, and peace and joy, through the power of the Spirit of God. For these things there is, there can be, no substitute. Without that, however great your knowledge and profession and zeal may be, your service is a vain oblation. 2. In what respect Christ is served by these things. (1) His authority as a Master is acknowledged. Christ has expressly enjoined these things on all His followers. (a) “Be ye therefore perfect.” (b) “Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” (c) “Ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” (2) His power as a Saviour is made manifest. These are not the natural product of the human heart. The Lord Jesus is their alone Fountainspring. (3) His example as a forerunner is imitated. Was not His an example of righteousness, peace, and joy? (4) Witness is borne to the nature and design of His gospel. Serving Christ in these things, we declare plainly to the world, in a way they can far better understand than by any verbal statement, what Christ has come to do in and for man! III. The blessed result of that service. There will be— 1. Divine acceptance. The ground of a guilty sinner’s acceptance before God is exclusively Christ’s finished work; but our text speaks not of that acceptance, but of the believer’s acceptance of his Heavenly Father. God’s complacency and delight in a holy life. 2. Human approval. Such a life as that delineated in our text cannot but commend itself even to the world. It is, however, only men of God who can, in the fullest sense of the word, appreciate it. (P. Morison.)
- 148. The kingdom ofGod consists in— 1. Righteousness in respect to God. 2. Peace with respect to others. 3. Joy in respect to yourself. (T. Robinson, D.D.) The kingdom of God A peasant boy was asked, “What is the kingdom of God?” He paused, and with an expression of seriousness and devotion which I shall never forget, placing his hand on his bosom, he said, “It is something here!” and then raising his eyes, he added, and something up yonder. (J. Leifchild, D.D.) The constitution of the kingdom of God I. Not— 1. Abstinence from earthly pleasure. 2. Observance of external forms. 3. The adoption of a religious deportment. 4. Zeal for orthodoxy. II. But— 1. Righteousness in faith and life. 2. Peace with God and man. 3. Joy in sorrow and reproach. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Distinguishing marks of the kingdom of God Every kingdom is renowned for some distinctive feature. Rome was conspicuous for its warlike propensities. The Grecian States were celebrated for their love of the fine arts. France is eminent for its taste. The American States are famous for their enterprise. But the distinguishing mark of the kingdom of God is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The inward and spiritual character of the kingdom of God I. In its privileges. As some painters can produce a striking likeness by a few clear though rapid strokes of the pencil, so is it with this beautiful sketch of the new man. 1. The first lineament is righteousness. By this must be meant an entire justification and freedom from every charge and condemnation which sin might urge, and which God’s broken commands might pass upon the Christian. This is the choicest mercy in the catalogue of mercies. It is— (1) An enriching mercy, entitling to every good.
- 149. (2) A mostvoluminous mercy, in which there is more than can be counted or imagined. 2. Peace is another lineament. Pardoning love hath subdued enmity against God. Peace hath been made by the blood of the Cross. This is one of the most gracious, as it is one of the most blessed, fruits of the Spirit. 3. Joy. It is the privilege of God’s children to rejoice, as the distinguished objects of His adopting love. And, surely, when the Spirit bears witness with the Christian’s spirit that he is a child of God, he hath the elements and materials for a holy joy, which the world, with all its pleasures, can never give, and which, with all its enmity, it is impotent to take away. II. Is its duties. 1. It is righteousness in the Holy Ghost. Not only is the satisfaction of Christ’s perfect merit imputed to the soul, but the work of his sanctification by the Holy Ghost, making the believer one with Him, is commenced within the heart. Then will conscience be made of every duty towards God and man. Faith is in the soul, as lightning in the air, which purifies; as fire in the metal, which refines. The heart, which heretofore was the thoroughfare of Satan, becomes the enclosure of God. 2. Peace also is a duty to the subjects of the Great Salem; and as wars and fightings come of the lusts of men, so will the disciples of Jesus be self-denying men, in order that they may dwell in peace with Him and with each other. 3. And how shall the Christian manifest his joy as a duty? Even by the holy delight which he takes in that service which is perfect freedom. (R. P. Buddicom, M.A.) The spirituality of the kingdom of God These words do not infer that we may eat and drink as we please; the very opposite is implied, namely, that whether we eat or drink, righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost should determine our spirit and conduct. The doctrine is, that the kingdom of God is not founded on things outward, or any artificial arrangement of these; but on the absolute difference between right and wrong, happiness and misery; and that, accordingly, its design is to establish virtuous dispositions and holy joys. This doctrine is manifestly in direct antagonism to the tendency at Rome to indulge in disputation about the obligation of existing customs, and needs to be taught in the present day. There is a very general disregard of the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, and of the sufficiency of its truths to meet the wants of man. To make the tree good, that its fruit may be good, is a process far too slow and undemonstrative for this enterprising age. Accordingly, we are overwhelmed with “improvements,” “reforms,” “schemes,” “societies,” and “movements,” to effect a speedy and decided change. Note— I. The design of the kingdom—viz., the diffusion of righteousness, peace, and joy. 1. Societies are formed with a leading object in view. Zeal for that object is the distinguishing mark of the members of each society. Diversity of taste and opinion is tolerated so long as it does not interfere with the interests to be promoted. There are religious communities of whose institutions distinctions of meat and drink form an essential part. Such is the general character of Hindooism and Mohammedanism. Such was the general character of Pharisaism. John the Baptist adopted similar means of distinction; he came neither eating nor drinking, nor clothing himself like
- 150. other men. ButChrist, instead of building up such walls of partition, removed them, and strove, by the example of loving, familiar intercourse, to overcome deep-rooted antipathies. Henceforward, “righteousness, peace, and joy,” are to be the distinguishing tokens of His subjects—not any style of living or appearance peculiar to them as members of a community. 2. Tried by this test, Romanism, and all imitations of it, must stand condemned; but let us apply it to ourselves as members of a Church claiming to be scriptural. We belong to different grades of society, and have different tastes and habits, Hence there is no small risk of uncharitable judgments. Simple tastes and manners to some appear little short of barbarous, and refined tastes and manners to others voluptuous and worldly. How uncalled for these insinuations! To any disposed to make much of outward distinctions, we must ask— (1) What of righteousness? Is not the first thing desirable—a heart right with God? (2) What of peace? Is not peace Christ’s great legacy to His disciples? and peacemaking the duty He has blessed, as peculiarly that of the children of God? (3) What of joy? Is it not the will of God that we should rise above anxiety and discontent, to grateful, hopeful joy? Murmuring about ourselves or our fellow- Christians is neither right nor profitable. (4) What of Divine grace as the source of all spiritual excellence? God the Holy Ghost is not to be limited by man’s prescription of meats and drinks, days and times, dress and postures. II. The fitness of the design. 1. It accords with the extent of the kingdom. God, as the rightful sovereign of all men everywhere, commands them to return to their allegiance. The kingdom must therefore include men of all nations. How great the diversity of conditions of existence! And in His wisdom and love God has provided a system adapted to all these conditions. A religion eminently spiritual and practical, having very few and simple ordinances of worship, Christianity belongs specially to no clime, grade, or class. 2. It accords with the number and variety of the enemies to be overcome. Confessedly there is a great deal of irreligion and vice in the world; and no religion is worthy of the name that does not engage its adherents to a course of resolute opposition to these evils. But there is a great deal of sin and misery where these evils are neither seen nor heard. Seemly forms of religion and correct moral deportment have not been sufficient to satisfy the heart and purify the conscience. Churches have been rent, homes made desolate, and hearts broken, by men “touching the righteousness which is of the law blameless.” We do not need more fasts, zeal for traditions and customs; we need a religion that will strike at the root of all the evil in our nature. This religion we find in Christianity, which obliges us to follow after righteousness, peace, and joy. 3. It accords with the attributes of God; for there is blasphemy in the very supposition that the Divine Being can be satisfied with a religion chiefly ceremonial or outwardly correct. He is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth. 4. It accords with the character of Christ. How strange that His name should have been given to such systems as have borne it! So far from patronising externalism, He
- 151. exposed Himself tothe wrath of the Ritualists of that day; so far from affecting peculiarity of living, He exposed Himself to the calumny that He was a gluttonous man and a winebibber. Everywhere and always He proclaimed the necessity of a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees. Were He this day amongst us, no word of sympathy would be heard from Him with those who compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and only succeed in perverting his better nature. His sympathy would be with those who assert their freedom from the commandments of men, and who joyfully own their obligation to love and obey their “Father which is in heaven.” 5. It accords with the destiny of all true subjects of the kingdom. There must be a meetness, as well as a title, belonging to all the heirs of glory. A training of the soul in righteousness, peace, and joy, we can well believe to bring about a meetness for the society of the spirits of the just made perfect; but we are at a loss to conceive how a round of forms and ceremonies, or a careful conformity to usages and example, in matters wholly of this world and of this body, can constitute any such preparation. (W. Limont.) The kingdom of God is a soul-kingdom Why was it called a kingdom at all? Well, since a man’s disposition is the fountain from which all his enjoyments that are worth having spring in this world, the condition of the soul becomes a kingdom in the sense that it represents to men the idea of felicity. The old notions were that a king was about the happiest man on earth. Hence the phrase, “Happy as a king.” Therefore in the description of the disposition, which is the soul-kingdom, it is called a king’s dominion, or a king-dora. But there is a more important reason— namely, that a king in his kingdom dominates, controls, governs. It is the disposition of men, their character, that controls. Their enjoyment, all their life, depends upon what they are in themselves, and inside of themselves. If a man’s soul is one that works itself out in righteousness, in peace, in joy in the Holy Ghost, that is the dominating influence which controls the whole life. Now I aver that men are happy in the exact proportion in which their dispositions are qualified to make happiness. The enjoyment of men is in the ratio in which they have a right inward condition. A man who has right feelings and right dispositions, either finds happiness or makes it. It will happen to a man who is all right in himself. He either finds or makes life a blessing. A man who is in good health, who has a right temperament, all of whose dispositions are noble, and who is hopeful, courageous, and cheerful, loving God and loving men, thanks nobody for making him happy; he is happy of himself. The human soul was just as much made to produce happiness as a music-box was made to produce music. If it be in a right and normal condition, harmonised with God, with the spirit-world, for which we are being trained, and with men, then it is happy. The soul must needs produce its own happiness out of the harmony of its own condition; but men do not believe in this. You will find young men saying, “If I were as rich as Vanderbilt, would not I enjoy myself?” Do you enjoy yourself now? “No—oh, no.” Then you would not then. (H. W. Beecher.) The essentials of Christianity I. A negative description of the kingdom of god. “Meat and drink” includes the carnal and sensational in every shape and form. True religion is not—
- 152. 1. Ceremonial observances.Godliness is at a low ebb when great importance is attached to external rites. Ceremonialism is the respirator worn by a Church when its lungs are too weak to breathe the bracing atmosphere of revealed truth. Consumption has set in, and in time it will die of exhaustion, and be decently buried in tile grave of formality. This was the case with the Jewish Church. The temple services were carried on with regularity and gorgeousness, while the soul of religion was gone. 2. The gratification of the appetites. Pagan converts ran to the other extreme— religion to them was a matter of cookery, confectionery, and stimulants. Previous to their conversion they had been accustomed to associate worship with gluttony, drunkenness, and licentiousness of the lowest type. Their countrymen indulged in the wildest revelries while celebrating the festivities of Bacchus and Venus. What wonder, then, that such should come into the Church, expecting it to furnish them with fresh opportunities to pamper their carnal appetites? They even turned the Lord’s Supper into a carousal. 3. AEsthetic idealism. Many minds have been so “corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” by what is called higher criticism, as to lose all relish for doing, and they spend their time in dreaming. In this state of mind they devise for themselves an ideal Christ, no more like the real Christ of the gospels than the sensitive plant that grows in the hothouse to the hardy oak whose giant arms defy the storm. To the idealist the Bible is a poetical perfumery to regale the jaded senses, and not the voice of God, saying, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” The house of prayer is a floral halt, where the roll of music soothes the feelings, and the dim light plays softly on the eye, and fashion displays the contents of its costly wardrobes; and not the house of God, where sincerity agonises and devotion sheds tears of penitence and joy. II. A positive description of true religion. It consists in— 1. Rightness of motive—“Righteousness.” One of the old schoolmen has said that “manners make the man.” That is true as far as society is concerned; but motives make the man in the sight of God; external accomplishments go for nothing if the moving springs of character are crooked and unrighteous. But how are they whose motives are wrong and character corrupt to be made right? For it is written, “There is none righteous, no not one.” “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight.” But, thank God, there is a way of escape—“Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” “Not by works of righteousness which we have done,” etc. 2. Tranquillity of mind—“peace”— (1) With God. The old enmity against the Divine character and government is slain, the hostile parties become reconciled, and the peace which passeth all understanding fills the believer’s mind—“For He is our peace, who hath made both one.” Tranquillity of mind is simply impossible until this reconciliation is effected. Who can be free from fear whilst the sentence of condemnation, like the sword of Damocles, hangs over his head? (2) With ourselves. Conscience gives up accusing, the passions are kept under restraint, and the little kingdom within, once in a state of insurrection, becomes quiet and subdued and loyal to the Prince of Peace. But distinguish between a state of indifference and a state of peace. The former resembles the oppressive stillness of the atmosphere before the storm, and the latter the bright sunshine and verdant soil after the storm. Many are lulled to sleep in false security, like the
- 153. drunkard who slepton the beach fancying himself at home; the advancing tide rudely awoke him to a sense of his danger, but in trying to escape he only went deeper into the water and was swept away by the current. “For when they shall say, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them,” etc. 3. Jubilation of heart—“joy in the Holy Ghost.” (1) Righteousness is the lowest stage in Christian experience; peace is the middle state; joy is the crowning state. Righteousness is the foundation of the temple safe and sound; peace is the superstructures roofed in, affording shelter to the weary, heavy-laden soul; joy is the tower, with a peal of bells giving forth a clear musical expression of the incalculable advantages of a holy life. Or, to change the figure, righteousness is the “root of the matter,” strong and healthy; peace is the flower, fine and fragrant; joy is the fruit, ripe and delicious. (2) Many Christians remain throughout life in a state of righteousness—are, indeed, “alive unto God through Christ our Lord”—but their spiritual life is of the lowest type. Others have advanced a step higher, and have attained to a state of peace. Sovereigns, when first minted, are rung on a sounding-iron, and those that do not give out a clear sound are reckoned “dumb,” and are sent back to be melted again. The “dumb blanks” are good gold, but as they lack the ringing sound, they are not allowed to pass into the press-room to receive the last impression of the die. Even so those Christians who have reached a state of peace and never advance further; they are good gold, nevertheless they are “dumb blanks,” and have need of being re-melted, so as to reach that jubilant state of feeling which breaks out into exultation. (3) The inspirer of this joy is the Holy Ghost. There is another kind of joy produced by stimulants; it rattles on the tongue, flashes in the eye, leaps in the heart, and breaks out into all kinds of riotous comicalities. All this boisterous gaiety leaves the heart sad and sorrowful, and it ends in gloom and despair. “Even in laughter the heart is sorrowful,” etc. This joy in the Holy Ghost is— (a) Demonstrative in its character. The outpouring of the Divine Spirit on the day of Pentecost was a most exciting scene; and during seasons of great awakening this has been repeated. (b) Permanent. “As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing.” To possess it is to possess the most precious of treasures, the sweetest of pleasures, and the richest of feasts; it is a constant summer in the soul, and a heaven in miniature. (W. A. Griffiths.) True religion I. Negatively. Does not consist— 1. In anything of a mere external kind. 2. In orthodox opinions or right modes of worship. 3. In a system of observance that is either constrained by fear or is employed as a sort of compromise to ward off the Divine displeasure, or made a ground of claim in the way of merit to the Divine favour. 4. In mere temporary feeling, be those feelings of what kind they may.
- 154. II. Positively. Itdoes consist in— 1. Righteousness. (1) Justifying. (2) Internal. (3) Practical. 2. Peace. (1) As opposed to hostility. (2) As opposed to condemnation. (3) Internal tranquillity. 3. Joy. (1) Of faith. (2) Of love. As implying— (a) Gratitude. (b) Complacency. (3) Of hope. (Josiah Hill.) Moral goodness, or true religion is— I. The reign of God is the soul. The reign— 1. Of reality, in contradistinction to that of appearance. 2. Of spirit, in contradistinction to that of matter. 3. Of love, in contradistinction to that of selfishness. 4. Of the absolute, in contradistinction to the reign of the contingent and fleeting. II. A spiritual service rendered to Christ (Rom_14:18). Not in meat, drink, and mere ceremonies, but in spiritual exercises. “Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” To serve Christ is the grand end of being; to serve Christ is to serve in the highest sense your own interests, the good of the universe, and the will of God. III. The highest glory of man. It ensures two things— 1. The favour of God. “Acceptable to God.” To please God—what is higher than this? To have His smile, to enjoy His friendship and fellowship. 2. The favour of men. “Approved of men.” Christly goodness commands the involuntary homage of all consciences. (D. Thomas, D.D.) But righteousness. Righteousness of life as the fruit of righteousness by faith. Righteousness practised as the effect of righteousness imparted. Righteousness before man as the evidence of
- 155. righteousness before God.Believers are to be filled with the fruits of righteousness (Php_1:11). Death to sin and life to righteousness fruits of Christ’s death. (T. Robinson, D.D.) The kingdom of God righteousness I. It is based upon righteousness. If we trace earthly kingdoms up to their origin this will scarcely be affirmed of any of them. Whatever may be said about its present procedure, what existing throne has not been erected on the ruin of human rights and liberties? But God reigns by right. We belong to Him as His creatures and His children. II. Its Monarch is righteous. Many potentates are manifestly unrighteous, and of the very best it can only be affirmed that on the whole they rule righteously. Compassed by infirmity, with the best intentions, they are often betrayed into deeds which charity is compelled to cover. But that astounding fiction when otherwise applied, “the king can do no wrong,” is absolutely and ever true in regard to God. III. Its laws are righteous. Of none other can this be said. The best system has some bad laws—legislation, part of which presses inequitably of some portion of the community, and which is endured because of the righteousness of the rest. But God’s laws are all good, and good to all alike. IV. It aims at the production of righteous character. The best earthly governments are content if the people are contented and law-abiding, i.e., if their subjects are materially prosperous and do not break the law. But the members of God’s kingdom are urged to keep His laws with a view to their own moral perfection and the ultimate moral perfection of the world. Hence the kingdom of the future is to be one wherein dwelleth righteousness, and the people thereof are to be all righteous. (J. W. Burn.) Peace.— The kingdom of God a kingdom of peace This is one of its notable characteristics as pourtrayed in the Bible. I. Its chief is the prince of peace. II. Its rule was inaugurated by the proclamation of peace. “Peace on earth.” III. Its measures are pacific. Its only wars are against the enemies of peace. IV. Its subjects are peaceable. Disturbance here is disloyalty and treason. V. Its universal establishment will secure world-wide peace. Arbitration, treaties, alliances, etc., will only effect partial and temporary peace. (J. W. Burn.) And joy in the Holy Ghost.— The kingdom of God a kingdom of joy I. It was heralded as such. “Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy.” II. As SUCH IT PROMOTES THE JOY OF ITS SUBJECTS, “Happy are the people whose God is the Lord.”
- 156. III. Its subjectstherefore are commanded to be joyful. “Rejoice evermore.” (J. W. Burn.) Joy in the Holy Ghost 1. Not natural, but spiritual. 2. Not imaginary, but real. 3. Not dependent on external circumstances, but upon the revelations of the Spirit to faith. 4. Not transitory, but; permanent. 5. Not extinguished in death, but perfected in heaven. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Joy Jesus is the bringer of spiritual spring into the soul. When He comes the time of the singing of birds comes with Him. He is the Sun of Righteousness who turns January into May. Really, we ought to understand that God allows every child of His to make his own almanac. We can have warm weather, and flowers and fruits and bird-songs all the year through if we only live in the rays of Christ’s countenance. The sorest sorrows of life are of our own making. We shut out God’s larks from our hearts, and bring in the bats and hooting owls of miserable unbelief. These birds of evil omen disappear when the dayspring on high visits our souls. (T. L. Cuyler.) For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.— The ideal character and service I. The ideal character. 1. Righteousness. This is characteristic of the man who is right— (1) With God. (a) Through justifying faith. (b) By a sanctified experience. (2) With man through a dutiful fulfilment of the obligations of every human relationship. (3) With both in thought, resolve, word, deed. 2. Peace. This marks the man who— (1) Has made his peace with God. (2) Is at peace with man. (3) Has a peaceful mind. 3. Joy. This— (1) Flows from the other two.
- 157. (2) Wells upfrom a grateful heart. (3) Streams over in a glad and beneficent life. II. The ideal service. 1. In these things we serve Christ. Christ’s work is to make us righteous, etc. “We are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus.” When we work out what He works in we are workers together with Him and so serve Him. What shall we say about the man who professes to be the servant of Christ, and is unrighteous, quarrelsome, or morose? These characteristics defeat Christ’s end in the world, and bring dishonour on his Master’s name and cause. 2. In these things we are— (1) Acceptable to God. Because— (a) They are conformable to His own nature. He is the righteous Father, the God of Peace, the blessed God. (b) They accomplish His design in creation, providence, and grace. (2) Approved of men, even when unacceptable in the case of bad men. The natural conscience is compelled even when depraved to silently applaud what is righteous, etc. (J. W. Burn.) Men’s approbation desirable 1. For their own sakes. 2. For the sake of the Master whom we serve. 3. For our own comfort and influence. To please God the surest way to be approved of men. (T. Robinson, D.D.) Christianity approved It would not be a fair thing to test a philosophy, or a body of political, or scientific truth, by the conduct and character of the men that professed it; but it is a perfectly fair thing, under certain conditions and in certain limits, to test a system of practical morality, which professes to do certain things with people’s character and conduct, by its professors. It is just as fair, when a creed comes before our notice which assumes to influence men’s conduct, to say, “Well! I should like to see it working,” as it is for any of you mill-owners to say, when man comes to you with a fine invention upon paper, “Have you got a working model of it? Has it ever been tried? What have been the results that have been secured by it?” Or as it would be to say to anybody that claimed to have got a “medicine that will cure consumption,” to say,”Have you any cases? Can you quote any cures?” So when we Christians stand up and say, “We have a faith which is able to deaden men’s minds to the world; which is able to make them unselfish; which is able to lift them up above cares and sorrows; which is able to take men and transform their whole nature, and put new desires and hopes and joys into them,” it is quite fair for the world to say, “Have you? Does it? Does it do so with you? Can you produce your lives as working models of Christianity?” (A. Maclaren, D.D.)
- 158. HAWKER 17-21, “Forthe kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (18) For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. (19) Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. (20) For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. (21) It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. What a very precious Scripture this is, in conclusion of what had been said, concerning all the controversies of meat and drink? The Kingdom of God is not meal and drink. Here we have the decision. Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse, 1Co_8:8. How everlastingly disposed the minds of men have been, in taking up with anything short of the change of heart! This throws to the ground every attempt of compromise with God. Nothing short of the work of God the Spirit in regeneration, can bring sinners to God. It is the special, and peculiar office of God the Holy Ghost, to effect this blissful change. He convinceth of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. And, by holding up to the sinner’s view, the Person, work, and glory of Christ, and working in the sinner’s heart, faith to believe the record God hath given of his Son; he gives grace, to possess an interest, in all the communicable rights of the Lord Jesus, which he wrought for his people; and thus renders the kingdom of grace here, leading to a kingdom of glory hereafter, the privilege of the whole Church. Reader! doth your experience correspond with the Apostle’s, and is this kingdom in your esteem, righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost? If so, sweet to the soul is the testimony of God the Spirit by the Apostle. For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, in the beloved , and approved of men! 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. BAR ES, “In these things - In righteousness, peace, and joy. Serveth Christ - Or obeys Christ, who has commanded them. He receives Christ as his “master” or “teacher” and does his will in regard to them. To do these things is to do honor to Christ, and to show the excellency of his religion. Is acceptable to God - Whether he be converted from the Jews or the Gentiles. And approved of men - That is, people will “approve” of such conduct; they will esteem it to be right, and to be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. He does not say that the wicked world will “love” such a life, but it will commend itself to them as such a life as people ought to lead.
- 159. CLARKE, “In thesethings - In righteousness, peace, and joy. Serveth Christ - Or obeys Christ, who has commanded them. He receives Christ as his “master” or “teacher” and does his will in regard to them. To do these things is to do honor to Christ, and to show the excellency of his religion. Is acceptable to God - Whether he be converted from the Jews or the Gentiles. And approved of men - That is, people will “approve” of such conduct; they will esteem it to be right, and to be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. He does not say that the wicked world will “love” such a life, but it will commend itself to them as such a life as people ought to lead. GILL, “For he that in these things serveth Christ,.... That is, in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; he whose faith is an obedient one, and embraces these things, and from the heart obeys them; who seeks righteousness alone by Christ, and peace and pardon through his blood; who rejoices in Christ Jesus, and puts no trust in the flesh, in moral duties or ceremonial services; and who, from principles of grace, serves Christ in a way of righteousness, wherein he possesses true peace of conscience, and abundance of spiritual joy and comfort: the Alexandrian copy and some others, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, "in this thing"; as if it referred only to the right use of Christian liberty, about things indifferent: such an one is acceptable to God; in Christ the beloved, in whom he believes, from whom he derives all his peace, joy, and comfort; and whom he serves in righteousness and holiness, and through whom also all his services are acceptable unto God: and approved of men; of good men, of such that can discern things that differ, and approve those that are excellent; and even of bad men, for such who live honestly and uprightly, who cultivate peace and friendship among men, and carry themselves cheerfully and civilly to all men, cannot but be approved of by the generality of them, though they may dislike them on other accounts. JAMISO , “For he that in these things — “in this,” meaning this threefold life. serveth Christ — Here again observe how, though we do these three things as a “kingdom of God,” yet it is “Christ” that we serve in so doing; the apostle passing here from God to Christ as naturally as before from Christ to God - in a way to us inconceivable, if Christ had been viewed as a mere creature (compare 2Co_8:21). is acceptable to God, and approved of men — these being the things which God delights in, and men are constrained to approve. (Compare Pro_3:4; Luk_2:52; Act_2:47; Act_19:20). The ideal life is one that pleases God and is approved by men, and that will not be the life that is always critical of others. MACARTHUR The true servant is also approved by men. In Titus 2:10 Paul says we should "adorn
- 160. the doctrine ofGod." We are to live lives that make God and His gospel attractive. Titus 2:5 speaks about women being "discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." How we live together in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit is essential to our testimony. The Greek word translated "approve" in Romans 14:18 is dokimos. It means "to be approved after close examination." We are under the scrutiny of the world, and it needs to see our love. We don't want to cause a brother to stumble, grieve, or be devastated and end up forfeiting our witness. In 1 Corinthians 9:1 the apostle Paul says, "Am I not an apostle, Am I not free?" He had every right to do as he pleased in areas that were not sin. In verses 4-5 he says, "Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a sister, a wife?" Paul had every right to get married. In verse 6-7 he says, "Have we no right to forbear working? Who goeth to war at any time at his own expense? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of its fruit? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?" In verse 8-14 Paul continues to discuss his rights. Then in verse 15 he says, "I have used none of these things." Paul set aside all his rights because he didn't want to offend unbelievers. In verses 19-22 he says, "Though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." We should never reach the point where the exercise of our liberties causes us to be unconcerned about whether we might be offending the lost. In verse 23 Paul says, "And this I do for the gospel's sake." The ultimate freedom is to have freedom yet choose not to use it for the sake of others. CALVI , “17.For the kingdom of God, etc. He now, on the other hand, teaches us, that we can without loss abstain from the use of our liberty, because the kingdom of God does not consist in such things. Those things indeed, which are necessary either to build up or preserve the kingdom of God, are by no means to be neglected, whatever offenses may hence follow: but if for love’ sake it be lawful to abstain from meat, while God’ honor is uninjured, while Christ’ kingdom suffers no harm, while religion is not hindered, then they are not to be borne with, who for meat’ sake disturb the Church. He uses similar arguments in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: “” he says, “ the stomach, and the stomach for meat; but God will destroy both,” (1Co_6:13 :) again, “ we eat, we shall not abound,” (1Co_8:8.)
- 161. By these wordshe meant briefly to show, that meat and drink were things too worthless, that on their ACCOUNT the course of the gospel should be impeded. But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink; not for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of showing, that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words a summary of what it is; namely, that we, being well assured, have peace with God, and possess real joy of heart through the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But as I have said, these few things he has accommodated to his present SUBJECT . He indeed who is become partaker of true righteousness, enjoys a great and an invaluable good, even a calm joy of conscience; and he who haspeace with God, what can he desire more? (430) By CONNECTING peace and joy together, he seems to me to express the character of this joy; for however torpid the reprobate may be, or however they may elevate themselves, yet the conscience is not rendered calm and joyful, except when it feels God to be pacified and propitious to it; and there is no solid joy but what proceeds from this peace. And though it was necessary, when mention was made of these things, that the Spirit should have been declared as the author; yet he meant in this place indirectly to oppose the Spirit to external things, that we might know, that the things which belong to the kingdom of God CONTINUE complete to us without the use of meats. (430) What is here said is no doubt true of the kingdom of God; but by considering what is afterwards said in the two following verses, we cannot well accede to this exposition. Righteousness, peace, and joy, mentioned here, are things acceptable to God and approved by men: they must then be things apparent and visible, which men see and observe; and to follow “ things of peace,” refers to the conduct. “” then must mean here the doing of what is right and just towards one another; “” concord and unanimity, as opposed to discord and contentions; “” the fruit of this peaceable state, a cheering delight, a mutual rejoicing, instead of the sorrow and grief occasioned by discord; and these come “ the Holy Spirit” and are produced by him; and they are not the semblances of such virtues and graces, presented in some instances by false religions. See Gal_5:22. [Doddridge ], [Stuart ], and [Chalmers ] have viewed the passage in this light, though the latter, as well as [Scott ], seemed inclined to combine the two views: but this is to mix up things together unnecessarily, and to destroy the harmony of the context. — Ed. 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. BAR ES, “Let us therefore follow ... - The object of this verse is to persuade the church at Rome to lay aside their causes of contention, and to live in harmony. This exhortation is founded on the considerations which the apostle had presented, and may
- 162. be regarded asthe conclusion to which the argument had conducted him. The things which make for peace - The high purposes and objects of the Christian religion, and not those smaller matters which produce strife. If men aim at the great objects proposed by the Christian religion, they will live in peace. If they seek to promote their private ends, to follow their own passions and prejudices, they will be involved in strife and contention. There “are” great common objects before “all” Christians in which they can unite, and in the pursuit of which they will cultivate a spirit of peace. Let them all strive for holiness; let them seek to spread the gospel; let them engage in circulating the Bible, or in doing good in any way to others, and their smaller matters of difference will sink into comparative unimportance, and they will unite in one grand purpose of saving the world. Christians have more things in which they “agree” than in which they differ. The points in which they are agreed are of infinite importance; the points on which they differ are commonly some minor matters in which they may “agree to differ,” and still cherish love for all who bear the image of Christ. And things wherewith ... - That is, those things by which we may render “aid” to our brethren; the doctrines, exhortations, counsels, and other helps which may benefit them in their Christian life. May edify - The word “edify” means properly to “build,” as a house; then to “rebuild” or “reconstruct;” then to adorn or ornament; then to do any thing that will confer favor or advantage, or which will further an object. Applied to the church, it means to do anything by teaching, counsel, advice, etc. which will tend to promote its great object; to aid Christians, to enable them to surmount difficulties, to remove their ignorance, etc.; Act_9:31; 1Co_8:1; 1Co_14:4. In these expressions the idea of a “building” is retained, reared on a firm, tried cornerstone, the Lord Jesus Christ; Eph_2:20; Isa_28:16. Compare Rom_9:33. Christians are thus regarded, according to Paul’s noble idea Eph_2:20-22, as one great temple erected for the glory of God, having no separate interest, but as united for one object, and therefore bound to do all that is possible, that each other may be suited to their appropriate place, and perform their appropriate function in perfecting and adorning this temple of God. CLARKE, “Let us therefore follow - Far from contending about meats, drinks, and festival times, in which it is not likely that the Jews and Gentiles will soon agree, let us endeavor to the utmost of our power to promote peace and unanimity, that we may be instrumental in edifying each other, in promoting religious knowledge and piety instead of being stumbling-blocks in each other’s way. GILL, “Let us therefore follow after the things, Since the kingdom of God is in part peace, and the man that serves Christ in this, as in other things, is accepted with God, and grateful to men, the apostle very pertinently exhorts to seek after such things, which make for peace: not with God, for, for a sinful creature to make peace with God is impracticable and impossible, nor is there any exhortation to it in all the word of God; and if there was, it would be unnecessary here; since the persons here exhorted were such for whom peace with God was made by Christ, and who had a clear and comfortable
- 163. sense of itin their own souls; and besides, for any to be put upon, or to attempt to make their peace with God, must highly reflect upon the methods of God's grace, in reconciling sinners to himself; and be injurious to the blood, sacrifice, and satisfaction of Christ, by which only peace is made: but the apostle means, either what makes for a man's own peace, or for the peace of others; the things which make for a man's own peace in his own conscience distressed with sin, are looking to, and dealing with the blood of Christ, which speaks peace and pardon; and the righteousness of Christ, which being apprehended by faith, a soul has peace with God through Christ; and also an embracing the Gospel, and the truths of it, which direct to Christ, which publish peace, and are the means of increasing and establishing a solid and well grounded peace, on the free grace of God and merits of Christ: attending on ordinances, and exercising a conscience void of offence towards God and men, are means of continuing and promoting a man's peace; he enjoys peace in them, though he do not derive it from them; yea, in the peace of others, is a man's own peace; and this is what is chiefly meant, a pursuing of things which make for the peace of others; of all men, and especially of saints; this is what should be eagerly followed after, closely pursued, and all ways and means should be made use of, to promote and secure it: this is the will of God; it is well pleasing to Christ, and a fruit of the Spirit; it is one part of the Gospel dispensation; church fellowship cannot be profitable and pleasant without it; it suits with the character of saints, who are sons of peace; and agrees with their privileges they enjoy, or have a right unto, as spiritual peace here, and eternal peace hereafter; and things wherewith one may edify another. The church is often compared to a building, to a temple, a city, an house, and saints are the materials thereof; who are capable of being edified, or built up, yet more and more, both by words and by deeds; by words, by the ministry of the word, which is set up and continued among other things, for the edifying of the body of Christ; by praying with, and for each other; and by Christian conversation, about the experience of the grace of God, and doctrines of the Gospel, whereby saints may be useful in building up one another in their most holy faith; and so likewise by avoiding all filthy, frothy, and corrupt communication; all angry words and wrathful expressions, which tend not to profit, and are not for the use of edifying, but the contrary: moreover, edification is promoted by deeds, by acts of charity, or love; for charity edifies not by bare words but by loving in deed and in truth, by serving one another in love; for the spiritual body of Christ his church, makes increase unto the edifying of itself in love; and also by laying aside the use of things indifferent, when disagreeable to any of the brethren; for though all things may be lawful to be done by us, yet all things do not edify the brethren; and things which make for the edification of the body, as well as our own, are diligently to be sought after. The Vulgate Latin version, and some copies, read, "let us keep", or "observe those things wherewith one may edify another". JAMISO , “the things, etc. — more simply, “the things of peace, and the things of mutual edification.” Making every effort means to make peace a priority. What do you look for? Is it a way to continue conflict, or a way to find peace? You are called to build and not tear down.
- 164. MACARTHUR We are tofollow after (Gk., dioko, "pursue") two things. 1. The things that make for peace Humility produces peace because someone with humility doesn't care about his own rights; he is more concerned about another's rights. Meekness, unselfishness, and love are the things that make for peace. a) 2 Corinthians 13:11--Paul said, "Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace." b) Ephesians 4:3--Paul said we're to be "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." Peace is part of our testimony, so let's learn to pursue the things that make for peace. If you find a weaker brother in the fellowship who doesn't understand his liberty, reach down to where he is and make peace with him. Don't flaunt your liberty, especially knowing that unbelievers are watching you. 2. The things that build up others We should pursue the kinds of things that will bring about spiritual strengthening in a brother. In 1 Corinthians 14:12 Paul says, "Forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church." Seek the things that will build up your weaker brother, not that which will cause him to stumble, grieve, and be devastated. Go over to 1 Corinthians 10:23 (comparative text). 1 Corinthians 10:23 again says it, "All things all lawful--but not all things are profitable." It might be all right to play golf. The question is, "Would it be profitable to do that, if in doing that you took time away from the worship." It might be profitable to be in a bowling league, but is that really profitable if it means you forfeit teaching of the Word of God, being involved in a Bible Study or nurturing your children. I mean these are all the questions you have to ask. Is it spiritually profitable? You might say, "Yes, because I enjoy the fellowship, I have an opportunity to witness to unsaved people." The answer is whatever it is in your own life and experience, but that's the question you have to ask. So he says it there in verse 23 again, but notice the end of verse 23, 1 Corinthians 10, "All things are lawful--but not all things edify." ot everything is going to build you up. That word edify (oikodomeo), "oiko" house, "domeo" domestic, domicile, to build a house. ot everything is going to put the pieces together in constructing your spiritual house the way you would want it to be. ot everything is going to contribute to your spiritual development. 1 Corinthians 14:26, Paul says, "Let all things be done unto edification." 2 Corinthians 12:19, "We do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying." I just want to do everything that's going to build me up.
- 165. I can askmyself that question about anything and I do it all the time. If I read that, if I look at that, if I go to that, if I experience that, is that profitable spiritually and will it build me up? Is it a contributor to a disciplined spiritual life? Is it a contributor to self-control? Is it a contributor to edification? Is it going to be something that will strengthen me? Go back to 1 Corinthians 6 for a moment, let's complete this little circle in 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 6:12, "All things are lawful--but not all things are profitable." And as we saw in chapter 10, not all things edify. ow, look at this one, "All things are lawful for me--but I will not be mastered by any." ow, he adds another question, not only, "Is it profitable? Does it build me up?" But, "Does it have the potential to dominate me? Does it have the potential to dominate me? Will it bring me into bondage?" I don't want to be mastered by anything. There are so many things in life that can master you. Again, I remember my father telling me about a man who was a minister, a very gifted evangelist, who eventually had to completely get out of the ministry because he started out enjoying golf and ended up gambling for huge amounts of money and was totally disqualified from ministry. How in the world can a man let an inanimate ball destroy his life? I have been in mental institutions, and I have seen brilliant people with earned doctorates sitting in there drooling in straight-jackets in the cuckoo's nest, because they were controlled by grapes or hops. An utterly inanimate thing, just a thing, totally controls them. And I have asked the question many times, "How can people even smoke? How can they do that?" Why does, first of all, anybody want to put a pile of leaves in their mouths and set it on fire and blow smoke out their nose? What is the point? Why does anyone want to do that? And when you know that everyone of those things is just a coffin nail--why? And then you stop and realize, man, the king of the earth, man the epitome of creation, man the very image of God is controlled by a pile of weeds. What? Absolutely unbelievable. I don't want to do anything that's going to control me. othing. Some people are controlled by an electronic box, it controls them. Some people are controlled by certain "Soap Operas"--runs their whole life. Some people are controlled by music. If there isn't music going they are in sort of an apoplexy. Some people are controlled by fashion, you know. They just have to be there all the time getting all the stuff. It just dominates their life. There isn't anything wrong with being clothed, we hope you would do that. But you see that there are things in life that enslave you, so Paul says "Look, I have to ask some basic questions here, and one of those questions is 'Will it bring me into bondage?'" Let me pose another question briefly, 1 Peter 2:16, "Will it violate my conscience or my understanding of the Lordship of Christ? Will it be a bad example or a good example to others if I do this?" Those are the questions. "Will it be spiritually profitable? Will it build me up or will it enslave me?" Here's another question, 1
- 166. Peter 2:16, (My,this is a good one), he says, "You're free in Christ. You can act as free men." But look at this, "Do not use your freedom as a covering for evil." So I ask this question, "Am I exercising this freedom to cover my sin?" What does that mean? That means I say "I'm free," I say "I'm free," I say "I'm free and I am really enjoying my freedom in Christ," when the truth is, that is nothing but a hypocritical excuse for my desire to indulge in sin. Right? It is just a cloak for my lusts. It's a veil over my evil intent. I weary of this and it is very popular today. People putting the veil of grace over their evil intent. They want to do what they want to do, and they want to lust when they want to lust, and they want to have when they want to have, and they want to engage in what they want to engage in, and they just put the cloak of, "Free In Christ" over all of their behavior. STEDMA There are the guidelines: Enjoy your liberties, indulge them wherever you desire, if you do so in such a way that you do not destroy peace, or mutual building up in truth, or arrest the learning process for someone else. Paul enlarges on these guidelines for us. Whenever you are doing something that threatens the peace of a community, or a church, or a group, or an individual, so that they cannot handle it, so that they become angry and upset, then back off. You who are strong, bear that burden. Do not insist on your rights. Some Christians get so intent on having their rights that I have seen them indulge in the very presence of people they knew would be highly offended by what they did, simply because they wanted to show how free they were. Paul says that kind of thing is absolutely wrong. CALVI , “19.Let us then follow, etc. He recalls us, as much as possible, from a mere regard to meats, to consider those greater things which ought to have the first place in all our actions, and so to have the precedence. We must indeed eat, that we may live; we ought to live, that we may serve the Lord; and he serves the Lord, who by benevolence and kindness edifies his neighbor; for in order to PROMOTE these two things, concord and edification, all the duties of love ought to be exercised. Lest this should be thought of little moment, he repeats the sentence he had before announced, — that corruptible meat is not of such consequence that for its sake the Lord’ building should be destroyed. For wherever there is even a spark of godliness, there the work of God is to be seen; which they demolish, who by their unfeeling conduct disturb the conscience of the weak. But it must be noticed, that edification is joined to peace; because some, not unfrequently, too freely indulge one another, so that they do much HARM BY their compliances. Hence in endeavoring to serve one another, discretion ought to be exercised, and utility regarded, so that we may willingly grant to our brother whatever may be useful to further his salvation. So Paul reminds us in another place: “ things,” he says, “lawful to me; but all things are not expedient;” and immediately he adds the reason, “ all things do not edify.” (1Co_10:23.) Nor is it also in vain that he repeats again, For meat destroy not, (432) etc., intimating, that he required no abstinence, by which there would be, according to what he had said before, any loss to piety: though we eat not anything we please, but abstain from the use of meats for the sake of our brethren; yet the kingdom of God CONTINUES entire and complete. (432) This is a similar, but not the same sentence as in Rom_14:15. The verb is different , κατάλυε
- 167. which means toundo, to loosen, to pull down; and as “” follows, which, as [Calvin ] and others think, is to be understood of God’ building, the work of edifying or building up his people, the verb may in this sense be rendered here, “ not down the work of God.” But here, as inRom_14:15, it is the tendency of the deed that is to be considered, and the effect as far as man’ doing was concerned. The Apostle says nothing of what God would do. — Ed. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace. Things which make for peace I. What these things are. 1. Righteousness. 2. Humility. 3. Love. 4. Faith. II. We must follow them. 1. Earnestly. 2. Prayerfully. 3. With steady faith in our ultimate attainment of them. III. The result. Eternal life in heaven with God and Christ. (J. H. Tarson.) The things which make for peace 1. A peaceable temper. 2. Peaceable measures. 3. Peaceable methods. Things to be sought after I. Things which make for peace. 1. Essentials in which we all agree. 2. Objects which we all desire. 3. Blessings in which all can share. II. Things that edify. 1. Knowledge. 2. Faith. 3. Love. (J. Lyth, D.D.) The endeavours of the true Christian for the welfare of his brethren I. Wherein they consist. Endeavours after—
- 168. 1. Peace. 2. Edification. II.What are the common hindrances? Offences which— 1. Destroy mutual confidence. 2. Injure weak consciences. III. How are they to be overcome. 1. By avoiding the occasions of offence. 2. By encouraging in others the growth of faith. 3. By abstaining from everything that might lead another to act in opposition to his own conscience. (J. Lyth, D.D.) For meat destroy not the work of God.— Thy weak brother I. Weak as he is, is a work of god. II. May easily be destroyed; for— 1. Though all things are pure— 2. They may become a cause of offence— 3. Especially to him that is weak. III. Therefore abstain. 1. The enjoyment is little. 2. The consequence dreadful to contemplate. 3. The sacrifice noble. (J. Lyth, D.D.) 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. BAR ES, “For meat - By your obstinate, pertinacious attachment to your own opinions about the distinctions of meat and drinks, do not pursue such a course as to lead a brother into sin, and ruin his soul. Here is a new argument presented why
- 169. Christians should pursuea course of charity - that the opposite would tend to the ruin of the brother’s soul. Destroy not - The word here is what properly is applied to pulling down an edifice; and the apostle continues the figure which he used in the previous verse. Do not pull down or destroy the “temple” which God is rearing. The work of God - The work of God is what God does, and here especially refers to his work in rearing “his church.” The “Christian” is regarded specially as the work of God, as God renews his heart and makes him what he is. Hence, he is called God’s “building” 1Co_3:9, and his “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works” Eph_2:10, and is denominated “a new creature;” 2Co_5:17. The meaning is, “Do not so conduct yourself, in regard to the distinction of meats into clean and unclean, as to cause your brother to sin, and to impair or ruin the work of religion which God is carrying on in his soul.” The expression does not refer to “man” as being the work of God, but to the “piety” of the Christian; to what God, by his Spirit, is producing in the heart of the believer. All things are indeed pure - Compare Rom_14:14. This is a concession to those whom he was exhorting to peace. All things under the Christian dispensation are lawful to be eaten. The distinctions of the Levitical law are not binding on Christians. But it is evil - Though pure in itself, yet it may become an occasion of sin, if another is grieved by it. It is evil to the man who pursues a course that will give offence to a brother; that will pain him, or tend to drive him off from the church, or lead him any way into sin. With offence - So as to offend a brother, such as he esteems to be sin, and by which he will be grieved. CLARKE, “For meat destroy not the work of God - Do not hinder the progress of the Gospel either in your own souls or in those of others, by contending about lawful or unlawful meats. And do not destroy the soul of thy Christian brother, Rom_14:15, by offending him so as to induce him to apostatize. All things indeed are pure - This is a repetition of the sentiment delivered, Rom_14:14, in different words. Nothing that is proper for aliment is unlawful to be eaten; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense - the man who either eats contrary to his own conscience, or so as to grieve and stumble another, does an evil act; and however lawful the thing may be in itself, his conduct does not please God. GILL, “For meat destroy not the work of God,.... The Syriac reads it, "the works of God"; referring either to righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, of which the kingdom of God consists; or to the weak brother, who both as a creature, and as a new creature, is the workmanship of God; and to the good work of grace, the work of faith upon his soul, which is the work of God; or rather to his peace, and the peace of the church of Christ, which is both the will and work of God; peace is what he calls his people to, and what he himself is the author of; and may be destroyed, and sometimes is, by trifling things; whereas a true believer, though ever so weak, cannot be destroyed, nor the good work of God upon his soul be lost, nor any part of it; not the work of faith,
- 170. which Christ praysfor that it fail not, and is both the author and finisher of; but the work of peace and edification in particular persons, and in a church, may be destroyed, but it is pity it should, by so small a matter, so trivial a thing as meat, or the use of anything that is indifferent: all things indeed are pure. The Ethiopic version adds, "to the pure"; to them that have pure consciences, sprinkled by the blood of Christ, and have no doubt or scruple about eating things indifferent; but this addition seems to be taken out of Tit_1:15; though it may serve to explain the sense, which is, that all sorts of food, without any distinction, may be eaten; there is nothing common or unclean, every creature in itself is good, and every Christian may lawfully eat thereof, with moderation and thankfulness. This is a concession which stands thus corrected and restrained, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. The Arabic version adds, "of his neighbour"; which is a good interpretation of the passage; for the apostle means not with offence to a man's own conscience, though so to eat is an evil too, but with offence to a fellow Christian; it is not an evil in itself to eat, but when this circumstance of offending another thereby attends it; it is evil, though not in itself, yet in its consequences; it offends a weak brother, displeases Christ, who would not have one of his little ones offended, and brings a woe upon the person by whom the offence comes. The Ethiopic version reads, "who eats inordinately"; which to be sure is sinful, but is not the meaning here. HE RY, “ Consider the work of God (Rom_14:20): “For meat destroy not the work of God - the work of grace, particularly the work of faith in thy brother's soul.” The works of peace and comfort are destroyed by such an offence given; take heed of it therefore; do not undo that which God hath done. You should work together with God, do not countermine his work. First, The work of grace and peace is the work of God; it is wrought by him, it is wrought for him; it is a good work of his beginning, Phi_1:6. Observe, The same for whom Christ died (Rom_14:15) are here called the work of God; besides the work that is wrought for us there is a work to be wrought in us, in order to our salvation. Every saint is God's workmanship, his husbandry, his building, Eph_2:10; 1Co_3:9. Secondly, We must be very careful to do nothing which tends to the destruction of this work, either in ourselves or others. We must deny ourselves in our appetites, inclinations, and in the use of Christian liberty, rather than obstruct and prejudice our own or others' grace and peace. Many do for meat and drink destroy the work of God in themselves (nothing more destructive to eh soul than pampering and pleasing the flesh, and fulfilling the lusts of it), so likewise in others, by wilful offence given. Think what thou destroyest - the work of God, whose work is honourable and glorious; think for what thou destroyest it - for meat, which was but for the belly, and the belly for it. [4.] Consider the evil of giving offence, and what an abuse it is of our Christian liberty. He grants that all things indeed are pure. We may lawfully eat flesh, even those meats which were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but, if we abuse this liberty, it turns into sin to us: It is evil to him that eats with offence. Lawful things may be done unlawfully. - Eats with offence, either carelessly or designedly giving offence to his brethren. It is observable that the apostle directs his reproof most against those who gave the offence; not as if those were not to be blamed who causelessly and weakly took the offence from their ignorance of Christian liberty, and the want of that charity which is not easily provoked and which thinketh no evil (he several times tacitly reflects upon them), but he
- 171. directs his speechto the strong, because they were better able to bear the reproof, and to begin the reformation. For the further pressing of this rule, we may here observe two directions which have relation to it: - First, Let not then your good be evil spoken of (Rom_14:16) - take heed of doing any thing which may give occasion to others to speak evil, either of the Christian religion in general, or of your Christian liberty in particular. The gospel is your good; the liberties and franchises, the privileges and immunities, granted by it, are your good; your knowledge and strength of grace to discern and use your liberty in things disputed are your good, a good which the weak brother hath not. Now let not this be evil spoken of. It is true we cannot hinder loose and ungoverned tongues from speaking evil of us, and of the best things we have; but we must not (if we can help it) give them any occasion to do it. Let not the reproach arise from any default of ours; as 1Ti_4:12, Let no man despise thee, that is, do not make thyself despicable. So here, Do not use your knowledge and strength in such a manner as to give occasion to people to call it presumption and loose walking, and disobedience to God's law. We must deny ourselves in many cases for the preservation of our credit and reputation, forbearing to do that which we rightly know we may lawfully do, when our doing it may be a prejudice to our good name; as, when it is suspicious and has the appearance of evil, or when it becomes scandalous among good people, or has any way a brand upon it. In such a case we must rather cross ourselves than shame ourselves. Though it be but a little folly, it may be like a dead fly, very prejudicial to one that is in reputation for wisdom and honour, Ecc_10:1. We may apply it more generally. We should manage all our good duties in such a manner that they may not be evil spoken of. That which for the matter of it is good and unexceptionable may sometimes, by mismanagement, be rendered liable to a great deal of censure and reproach. Good praying, preaching, and discourse, may often, for want of prudence in ordering the time, the expression, and other circumstances to edification, be evil spoken of. It is indeed their sin who do speak evil of that which is good for the sake of any such circumstantial errors, but it is our folly if we give any occasion to do so. As we tender the reputation of the good we profess and practise, let us so order it that it may not be evil spoken of JAMISO , “For — “For the sake of” meat destroy not the work of God — (See on Rom_14:15). The apostle sees in whatever tends to violate a brother’s conscience the incipient destruction of God’s work (for every converted man is such) - on the same principle as “he that hateth his brother is a murderer” (1Jo_3:15). All things indeed are pure — “clean”; the ritual distinctions being at an end. but it is evil to that man — there is criminality in the man who eateth with offence — that is, so as to stumble a weak brother. However, we shouldn't think that Paul would permit this kind of heart to cater to someone's legalism; Paul is speaking about the stumbling of a sincere heart, not catering to the whims of someone's legalism. You can be right in your conviction but still wrong in your conduct if you hurt others by it. Lenski, “Any use of Christian liberty which disregards the damaging effect it may produce upon a weak brother is a bad use.” MACARTHUR Verse 20 tells us that a weak believer is a work of God. Ephesians 2:10 says, "We
- 172. are his workmanship,created in Christ Jesus." God is at work in every Christian, even the weaker brother. We are not to pull down what God is building up. Some people are so proud about their liberation that they don't care if they tear down a weaker brother instead of building him up. The present imperative is used in Romans 14:20 for "destroy not." Paul is saying to stop what you're doing. Within that Roman assembly there must have been some liberated brethren who were tearing down what God was trying to build up. So Paul tells them to stop. They were not merely dealing with a man, but a man for whom Christ died--a man who is part of the kingdom and who has the Holy Spirit indwelling him. ow Paul adds that he also is a work of God. Would you take a black marker and scribble on the masterpieces in a museum? Would you cut through a Rembrandt with a knife? Would you crush a Stradivarius over your knee? If you wouldn't do those things, then why would you tear down the work of the ultimate master? STEDMA Peace is the work of God. othing can produce lasting peace among people, especially those of different cultural backgrounds, except the work of God. It is the Spirit of God who produces peace. So, if for the sake of some right that you have, some liberty you feel, you destroy that peace, you are destroying what God has brought about. Do not do that. It is not worth it. The apostle's second guideline is that you stop exercising your liberty whenever it arrests someone else's learning process. All Christians ought to examine these issues more and more. They ought to investigate for new truth from the Word, in a sense, constantly keeping an open mind on these matters. And they will, if you do not push them too hard. But if someone flaunts his liberty in such a way as to anger people and upset them, it will often harden them in their resistance to change, so that they no longer want to examine the question. That, Paul says, must be the limit to those who indulge in their liberty. Do not push people that far, or press them that hard. Rather, we are to help them understand the reason for our liberty. I think it is a healthy thing for a Christian who has liberty in some of these areas to indulge it on occasion. I do not think the cause of Christ is ever advanced by having every strong Christian in a congregation completely forsake their right to indulge in some of the things. What happens then is that the whole question is settled on the basis of the most narrow and most prejudiced person on the congregation. Soon, the gospel itself becomes identified with that kind of view. That is why the outside world often considers Christians to be narrow-minded people who have no concern except to prevent the enjoyment of the good gifts of life that God has given us. It is a good thing for people to indulge their liberties. It makes those who are not free raise questions in their minds, especially when they see that that indulgence is linked with a clear manifestation of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. It makes you think, when you see a godly person whom you admire and respect feel perfectly free to indulge in something that you have never been able to
- 173. indulge in, andyet you cannot deny that he is a godly person. I think that kind of thing is right, and Paul is suggesting this, as we will see in our next study. But, Paul says, be careful, and judge how far you are going. If what you are doing upsets people and hardens them in their views so that they will no longer examine and investigate, then stop, you are going too far. That should be the limit. This is what the apostle means when he says, All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. {Rom 14:20b-21 IV} ow, be careful there. Paul does not say it is wrong to make him think; it is never wrong to indulge your liberty to such a degree that your brother has to ask questions about his viewpoint. That is all right. But it is wrong to persist in it to such a degree that you cause him to act beyond his convictions in order to feel acceptable. CALVI , “20.All things are indeed pure, etc. By saying, that all things are pure, he makes a general declaration; and by adding, that it is evil for man to eat with offense, he makes an exception; as though he had said, — “ is indeed good, but to give offense is bad.” Now meat has been given to us, that we may eat it, provided love be observed: he then pollutes the use of pure meat, who by it violates love. Hence he concludes, that it is good to abstain from all things which tend to give offense to our brethren. He mentions three things in ORDER , to fall, to stumble, to be weakened: the meaning seems to be this, — “ no cause of falling, no, nor of stumbling, no, nor of weakening, be given to the brethren.” For to be weakened is less than to stumble, and to stumble is less than to fall. He may be said to be weakened whose conscience wavers with doubt, — to stumble when theconscience is disturbed by some greater perplexity, and to fall when the individual is in a manner alienated from his attention to religion. (433) (433) What is said here proves what is stated in a NOTE on Rom_14:13; that is, that σκάνδαλον is a less evil than πρόσκοµµα only that the idea of stumbling, instead of hindrance or impediment, is given here to the former word. The Apostle still adopts, as it were, the ascending scale. He first mentions the most obvious effect, the actual fall, the extreme evil, and then the next to it, the obstacle in the way; and, in the third place, the weakening of the faith of the individual. The real order of the process is the reverse, — the weakening, then the impediment, and, lastly, the stumblingblock which occasions the fall. — Ed. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to
- 174. fall. BAR ES, “Itis good - It is right; or it is better. This verse is an explanation or enlarged specification of the meaning of the former. To eat flesh - That is, such flesh as the “Jewish” convert regarded as unclean; Rom_14:2. Nor to drink wine - Wine was a common drink among the Jews, and usually esteemed lawful. But the Nazarites were not allowed to drink it Num_6:3, and the Rechabites Jer. 35 drank no wine, and it is possible that some of the early converts regarded it as unlawful for Christians to drink it. Wine was moreover used in libations in pagan worship, and perhaps the Jewish coverts might be scrupulous about its use from this cause. The caution here shows us what should be done “now” in regard to the use of wine. It may not be possible to prove that wine is absolutely unlawful, but still many friends of “temperance” regard it as such, and are grieved at its use. They esteem the habit of using it as tending to intemperance, and as encouraging those who cannot afford expensive liquors. Besides, the wines which are now used are different from those which were common among the ancients. That was the pure juice of the grape. That which is now in common use is mingled with alcohol, and with other intoxicating ingredients. Little or none of the wine which comes to this country is pure. And in this state of the case, does not the command of the apostle here require the friends of temperance to abstain even from the use of wine? Nor anything - Any article of food or drink, or any course of conduct. So valuable is peace, and so desirable is it not to offend a brother, that we should rather deny ourselves to any extent, than to be the occasion of offences and scandals in the church. Stumbleth - For the difference between this word and the word “offended,” see the note at Rom_11:11. It means here that by eating, a Jewish convert might be led to eat also, contrary to his own conviction of what was right, and thus be led into sin. Or is made weak - That is, shaken, or rendered “less stable” in his opinion or conduct. By being led to imitate the Gentile convert, he would become less firm and established; he would violate his own conscience; his course would be attended with regrets and with doubts about its propriety, and thus he would be made “weak.” In this verse we have an eminent instance of the charity of the apostle, and of his spirit of concession and kindness. If this were regarded by all Christians, it would save no small amount of strife, and heart-burnings, and contention. Let a man begin to act on the principle that peace is to be promoted, that other Christians are not to be offended, and what a change would it at once produce in the churches, and what an influence would it exert over the life! CLARKE, “It is good neither to eat flesh, etc. - The spirit and self-denying principles of the Gospel teach us, that we should not only avoid every thing in eating or drinking which may be an occasion of offense or apostasy to our brethren, but even to lay down our lives for them should it be necessary. Whereby thy brother stumbleth - Προσκοπτει, from προς, against, and κοπτω, to
- 175. strike, to hitthe foot against a stone in walking, so as to halt, and be impeded in one’s journey. It here means, spiritually, any thing by which a man is so perplexed in his mind as to be prevented from making due progress in the Divine life. Any thing by which he is caused to halt, to be undecisive, and undetermined; and under such an influence no man has ever yet grown in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. Or is offended - Η σκανδαλιζεται, from σκανδαλον, a stumbling-block; any thing by which a person is caused to fall, especially into a snare, trap, or gin. Originally the word signified the piece of wood or key in a trap, which being trodden on caused the animal to fall into a pit, or the trap to close upon him. In the New Testament it generally refers to total apostasy from the Christian religion; and this appears to be its meaning in this place. Or is made weak - Η ασθενει, from α, negative, and σθενος, strength; without mental vigor; without power sufficiently to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, lawful and unlawful. To get under the dominion of an erroneous conscience, so as to judge that to be evil or unlawful which is not so. The two last terms are omitted by two excellent MSS. (the Codex Alexandrinus and the Codex Ephraim), by the Syriac of Erpen, the Coptic and the Ethiopic, and by some of the primitive fathers. It is very likely that they were added by some early hand by way of illustration. Griesbach has left them in the text with a note of doubtfulness. GILL, “It is good neither to eat flesh,.... Any sort of flesh, even that which is not forbidden in the law, rather than offend a weak brother; and the apostle determines for himself, that he would not, where there was any danger of doing this, 1Co_8:13. Nor to drink wine; not only the wine of libations to Heathen deities, but wine in common; which was not prohibited by the law of Moses, but in the case of a Nazarite, and of vows: nor anything, be it what it will, whereby thy brother stumbleth. The Syriac version reads, "our brother"; anyone that stands in such a spiritual relation to any of us; and for which reason care should be taken, that no stumblingblock, or occasion to fall, should be put in his way; particularly that Christian liberty in things indifferent be not unseasonably and imprudently used, and so become a means of stumbling and staggering to weak minds: or is offended; to that degree, as to censure and judge him that eats, as an impious person, and a transgressor of the law; with whom he cannot keep his communion, but withdraws himself from it, and is even tempted to drop his profession of the Christian religion entirely, being ready to think it is not right, since contrary to the law of Moses: or is made weak; more weak in the faith than he was before, and his love is weakened and grows very cold and indifferent to his Christian brethren, that can take and use a liberty which he cannot. These two last phrases are not in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, nor in the Alexandrian copy, though in others, and are used for the sake of explanation and amplification.
- 176. HE RY, “Ofguilt to our brother. The former is a stumbling-block, that gives our brother a great shake, and is a hindrance and discouragement to him; but this is an occasion to fall. “If thy weak brother, purely by thy example and influence, without any satisfaction received concerning his Christian liberty, be drawn to act against his conscience and to walk contrary to the light he has, and so to contract guilt upon his soul, though the thing were lawful to thee, yet not being so to him (he having not yet thereto attained), thou art to be blamed for giving the occasion.” See this case explained, 1Co_8:9-11. To the same purport (Rom_14:21) he recommends it to our care not to give offence to any one by the use of lawful things: It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine; these are things lawful indeed and comfortable, but not necessary to the support of human life, and therefore we may, and must, deny ourselves in them, rather than give offence. It is good - pleasing to God, profitable to our brother, and no harm to ourselves. Daniel and his fellows were in better liking with pulse and water than those were who ate the portion of the king's meat. It is a generous piece of self-denial, for which we have Paul's example (1Co_8:13), If meat make my brother to offend; he does not say, I will eat no meat, that is to destroy himself; but I will eat no flesh, that is to deny himself, while the world stands. This is to be extended to all such indifferent things whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, is involved either in sin or in trouble: or is made weak - his graces weakened, his comforts weakened, his resolutions weakened. Is made weak, that is, takes occasion to show his weakness by his censures and scruples. We must not weaken those that are weak; that is to quench the smoking flax and to break the bruised reed. Observe the motives to enforce this caution. JAMISO , “It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing — “nor to do any thing” whereby — “wherein” thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak — rather, “is weak.” These three words, it has been remarked, are each intentionally weaker than the other: - “Which may cause a brother to stumble, or even be obstructed in his Christian course, nay - though neither of these may follow - wherein he continues weak; unable wholly to disregard the example, and yet unprepared to follow it.” But this injunction to abstain from flesh, from wine, and from whatsoever may hurt the conscience of a brother, must be properly understood. Manifestly, the apostle is treating of the regulation of the Christian’s conduct with reference simply to the prejudices of the weak in faith; and his directions are to be considered not as prescriptions for one’s entire lifetime, even to promote the good of men on a large scale, but simply as cautions against the too free use of Christian liberty in matters where other Christians, through weakness, are not persuaded that such liberty is divinely allowed. How far the principle involved in this may be legitimately extended, we do not inquire here; but ere we consider that question, it is of great importance to fix how far it is here actually expressed, and what is the precise nature of the illustrations given of it. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.
- 177. It is goodnot to drink wine Many object to total abstinence because it is not insisted on in the New Testament in so many words. True; but Paul appeals to our honour, conscience, brotherly feelings, and that to the Christian ought to be equivalent to a command. I. Abstinence embodies the spirit of the gospel. “We that are strong,” etc. (Rom_15:1). This principle is recognised in the State. Laws are framed, not for the rich and powerful, but the poor, the oppressed, “the submerged tenth.” So in the home—the infant, the feeble, the invalid have the first claim. So in the Church—the sinner, the weakling should be our supreme care. Unlike the world saying, “Let the devil take the hindmost,” or Cain asking, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Paul declares, “If meat make my brother,” etc. He practised what he preached. Illustrated by his taking the vow solely for the sake of his weaker brethren. Christ also taught self-abnegation, and enforced it by His example. If we were in personal peril every one would admit we should abstain. Our neighbour is, and Christ said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” Christ gave His life a ransom for many. We are therefore treading in His footsteps when we sacrifice our opinions and our tastes for the sake of our brother who is in danger of stumbling. II. It fulfils the golden principle that underlies the text. 1. The case is desperate. “Diseases desperate grown by desperate appliance are relieved.” The surgeon cuts off a limb that he may save a life. The fireman pulls down a house that the devouring flames may not consume a city. Even if drink were one of “the good creatures of God,” it is Christlike to give it up for the sake of those it is destroying body and soul. 2. We are free from a terrible responsibility. Meroz was cursed for its neutrality. Let us not share its fate by aiding the foe or holding aloof in the battle that is raging between the Church and the drink traffic. 3. “None of us liveth to himself,” etc. By taking decided temperance views no one can quote our example for a moderation that may lead to fatal excess. 4. Our usefulness will be increased. We can better help the drunkard back to sobriety and Christ when we support him by our practice. 5. We shall be rewarded. It may cost a struggle to surrender the convictions and habits of a lifetime. But if abstinence be right we are simply confessing that we are wiser to-day than we were yesterday. Having done it for Christ’s sake, we may safely leave ourselves in His hands. (W. Wakinshaw.) Christian abstinence I. The general principle of our text is that it is the duty of every Christian scrupulously to avoid all those things which have a tendency to lead others to sin. This principle I would seek to maintain because— 1. Its philosophy is sound. Mankind are imitative animals. What others do, rather than what God says, is the constant inquiry. This gives to example its mighty influence. It is surely most rational that Christians, who possess powerful influence by their example, should inquire, whether in their meats or their drinks, their dress or their manners, they are likely to lead others to evil. 2. Its philanthropy is obvious. Cain proudly asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and
- 178. betrayed the apathyof his murderous heart when he asked the question. We are taught to love our neighbour. And how can I do that better than by scrupulously avoiding everything which has a tendency to lead my friend, the members of my family, to sin. 3. Its piety is unquestionable. The whole life of the Son of God was an exemplification of the principle before us. II. The peculiar application of this principle to the present subject. We ask you to abstain — 1. Not from wholesome food, but from poisonous drink. St. Paul laid it down as an axiom, that the Christian disciple should forego that which was healthful, and pleasant, for the sake of his weak brethren; but we ask you to give up that which is baneful, for which you can say nothing but that it affords you a temporary gratification, and may lead on to habits that may corrupt the mind and destroy the body. 2. Not from that which may trouble a tender conscience, but from that which will debase moral character. The Jewish converts were scrupulous concerning the use of certain meats and drinks, and lest they should be tempted to eat, and thus bring guilt on their conscience, the apostle persuades them, out of kindness to their brethren, to abstain. But we are asking you to regard moral character, for you are likely by moderate use of ardent spirits to form the habit that pollutes the soul of man. 3. From that which, if innocent to yourselves, may be ruinous to others. As the Gentiles could eat and drink with a safe conscience, so you may use ardent spirits so diluted and so seldom, that you may escape the mischief; but what about others— your children and servants, e.g.? Conclusion: To strengthen the argument I appeal to you— 1. On behalf of yourselves. 2. For the sake of your country. Drunkenness is the source of disease, poverty, and immorality. 3. For the sake of our Churches. Many strong men have been wounded by the hateful practice. 4. For the sake of missions. The use of ardent spirits has been a fearful hindrance. (J. Blackburn.) It can even be a virtue to not do what is right for you to do when it prevents a negative consequence. It is a virtue to sacrifice liberty for the sake of love. Love is to guide our liberty. Paul did not cease to drink wine when it was not offensive as we see in I Tim. 5:23. It is not legalism he was after but a loving attitude. MACARTHUR Drinking wine is not a moral evil; however drunkenness is a sin. Drinking wine is not a sin if it does not contribute to losing your senses. The wine consumed in Paul's day was invariably mixed with a high amount of water to avoid drunkenness. The fruit of the grape fermented and mixed with water in and of itself isn't wrong, but anything that causes your brother to stumble is wrong. If drinking wine causes your
- 179. brother to stumbleby tempting him to sin, it then is wrong. That is the primary reason I don't do a lot of things I could do, including drinking wine or any alcoholic beverage, because I know some believers would be offended by it. If I were to drink wine, some would look down on me and deny me any godly virtue. But I joyously set such things aside because the greater issue is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Wine, food, cards, TV, and recreation are only things. It is how we use those things that matters. Sadly, many Christians will drink their beer and wine and flaunt their liberty no matter what anyone thinks. Consequently, there is a rift in the fellowship. 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. BAR ES, “Hast thou faith? - The word “faith” here refers only to the subject under discussion - to the subject of meats, drinks, etc. Do you believe that it is right to eat all kinds of food, etc. The apostle had admitted that this was the true doctrine; but he maintains that it should be so held as not to give offence. Have it to thyself - Do not obtrude your faith or opinion on others. Be satisfied with cherishing the opinion, and acting on it in private, without bringing it forward to produce disturbance in the church. Before God - Where God only is the witness. God sees your sincerity, and will approve your opinion. That opinion cherish and act on, yet so as not to give offence, and to produce disturbance in the church. God sees your sincerity; he sees that you are right; and you will not offend him. Your brethren do “not” see that you are right, and they will be offended. Happy is he ... - This state of mind, the apostle says, is one that is attended with peace and happiness; and this is a “further” reason why they should indulge their opinion in private, without obtruding it on others. They were conscious of doing right, and that consciousness was attended with peace. This fact he states in the form of a universal proposition, as applicable not only to “this” case, but to “all” cases; compare 1Jo_3:21. Condemneth not himself - Whose conscience does not reprove him. In that which he alloweth - Which he “approves,” or which he “does.” Who has a clear conscience in his opinions and conduct. Many people indulge in practices which their consciences condemn, many in practices of which they are in doubt. But the way to be happy is to have a “clear conscience” in what we do; or in other words, if we have “doubts” about a course of conduct, it is not safe to indulge in that course, but it should be at once abandoned. Many people are engaged in “business” about which they have
- 180. many doubts; manyChristians are in doubt about certain courses of life. But they can have “no doubt” about the propriety of abstaining from them. They who are engaged in the slave-trade; or they who are engaged in the manufacture or sale of ardent spirits; or they who frequent the theater or the ball-room, or who run the round of fashionable amusements, if professing Christians, must often be troubled with “many” doubts about the propriety of their manner of life. But they can have no doubt about the propriety of an “opposite” course. Perhaps a single inquiry would settle all debate in regard to these things: “Did anyone ever become a slave-dealer, or a dealer in ardent spirits, or go to the theater, for engage in scenes of splendid amusements, with any belief that he was imitating the Lord Jesus Christ, or with any desire to honor him or his religion?” But one answer would be given to this question; and in view of it, how striking is the remark of Paul, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in what he alloweth.” CLARKE, “Hast thou faith? - The term faith seems to signify in this place a full persuasion in a man’s mind that he is right, that what he does is lawful, and has the approbation of God and his conscience. Dr. Taylor has a judicious note on this passage. “There is no necessity,” says he, “ for reading the first clause interrogatively; and it seems to be more agreeable to the structure of the Greek to render it, Thou hast faith; as if he had said: ‘I own thou hast a right persuasion.’ Farther, there is an anadiplosis in εχεις, and εχε the first simply signifies thou hast, the latter, hold fast. Thou hast a right persuasion concerning thy Christian liberty; and I advise thee to hold that persuasion steadfastly, with respect to thyself in the sight of God. Εχω have, has frequently this emphatical signification. See Mat_25:29, etc.” Happy is he that condemneth not, etc. - That man only can enjoy peace of conscience who acts according to the full persuasion which God has given him of the lawfulness of his conduct: whereas he must be miserable who allows himself in the practice of any thing for which his conscience upbraids and accuses him. This is a most excellent maxim, and every genuine Christian should be careful to try every part of his conduct by it. If a man have not peace in his own bosom, he cannot be happy; and no man can have peace who sins against his conscience. If a man’s passions or appetite allow or instigate him to a particular thing, let him take good heed that his conscience approve what his passions allow, and that he live not the subject of continual self- condemnation and reproach. Even the man who has the too scrupulous conscience had better, in such matters as are in question, obey its erroneous dictates than violate this moral feeling, and live only to condemn the actions he is constantly performing. GILL, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God,.... Which is to be understood, not of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the doctrines of the Gospel; for a man that has such faith given him, ought not to keep it in his own breast, but to declare it to others; he ought to make a public visible profession of it, before many witnesses; it becomes him to tell the church of God what great things the Lord has done for him; and as he believes with the heart, so he ought to make confession with the mouth unto salvation; but this faith only designs a full persuasion in a man's own mind, about the free and lawful use of things indifferent, the subject the apostle is upon; see Rom_14:5;
- 181. and his adviceon this head is, to keep this faith and persuasion in a man's own breast, and not divulge it to others, where there is danger of scandal and offence: he does not advise such to alter their minds, change their sentiments, or cast away their faith, which was right and agreeable to his own, but to have it, hold and keep it, though, within themselves; he would not have them openly declare it, and publicly make use of it, since it might be grieving and distressing to weak minds; but in private, and where there was no danger of giving offence, they might both speak of it, and use it; and if they could not, should satisfy themselves that God, who sees in secret, knows they have this faith, and sees their use of it, though others do not, for from him they have it; so the Ethiopic version reads it, and "if thou hast faith with thyself, thou art secure before God, from whom thou hast obtained it"; and should be thankful to him for it, and use it in such a manner as makes most for his glory, and the peace of his church since to him they must give an account another day: some copies and versions read without an interrogation, thou hast faith; and others, "thou, the faith which thou hast, have it to thyself", &c. so the Alexandrian copy and the Syriac version. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth; or "approves of"; that is, it is well for that man who observes no difference of meats, if either he does not act contrary to his own conscience, and so condemns himself in what he allows himself in; or exposes himself to the censure, judgment, and condemnation of others, in doing that which he approves of as lawful, and is so, but unlawful when done to the offence of others: some understand this as spoken to the weak believer, signifying that he is in the right, who, through example, and the force of the sensual appetite, is not prevailed upon to allow himself to eat, contrary to his own conscience, and whereby he would be self-condemned; but as the strong believer is addressed in the beginning of the verse, I choose to think he is intended in this part of it; and the rather, because the weak believer is taken notice of in the next verse, with a peculiar view to this very thing. HE RY, “Secondly, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God, Rom_14:22. It is not meant of justifying faith (that must not be hid, but manifested by our works), but of a knowledge and persuasion of our Christian liberty in things disputed. “Hast thou clearness in such a particular? Art thou satisfied that thou mayest eat all meats, and observe all days (except the Lord's day) alike? Have it to thyself, that is, enjoy the comfort of it in thy own bosom, and do not trouble others by the imprudent use of it, when it might give offence, and cause thy weak brother to stumble and fall.” In these indifferent things, though we must never contradict our persuasion, yet we may sometimes conceal it, when the avowing of it will do more hurt than good. Have it to thyself - a rule to thyself (not to be imposed upon others, or made a rule to them), or a rejoicing to thyself. Clearness in doubtful matters contributes very much to our comfortable walking, as it frees us from those scruples, jealousies, and suspicions, which those who have not such clearness are entangled in endlessly. Compare Gal_6:4, Let every man prove his own work, that is, bring it to the touchstone of the word and try it by that so exactly as to be well satisfied in what he does; and then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. Paul had faith in these things: I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself; but he had it to himself, so as not to use his liberty to the offence of others. How happy were it for the church if those that have a clearness in disputable things would be satisfied to have it to themselves before God, and not impose those things upon others, and make them terms of communions, than which nothing is more opposite to Christian liberty, nor more destructive both to the peace of churches and the peace of consciences. That healing method is not the less excellent for being
- 182. common: in thingsnecessary let there be unity, things unnecessary let there be liberty, and in both let there be charity, then all will be well quickly. - Have it to thyself before God. The end of such knowledge is that, being satisfied in our liberty, we may have a conscience void of offence towards God, and let that content us. That is the true comfort which we have before God. Those are right indeed that are so in God's sight. JAMISO , “Hast thou faith — on such matters? have it to thyself — within thine own breast before God — a most important clause. It is not mere sincerity, or a private opinion, of which the apostle speaks; it is conviction as to what is the truth and will of God. If thou hast formed this conviction in the sight of God, keep thyself in this frame before Him. Of course, this is not to be over-pressed, as if it were wrong to discuss such points at all with our weaker brethren. All that is here condemned is such a zeal for small points as endangers Christian love. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth — allows himself to do nothing, about the lawfulness of which he has scruples; does only what he neither knows nor fears to be sinful. CALVI , “22.Hast thou faith? In ORDER to conclude, he shows in what consists the advantage of Christian liberty: it hence appears, that they boast falsely of liberty who know not how to make a right use of it. He then says, that liberty really understood, as it is that of faith, has properly a regard to God; so that he who is endued with a conviction of this kind, ought to be satisfied with peace of conscience before God; nor is it needful for him to show before men that he possesses it. It hence follows, that if we offend our weak brethren by eating meats, it is through a perverse opinion; for there is no necessity to constrain us. It is also plainly evident how strangely perverted is this passage by some, who hence conclude, that it is not material how devoted any one may be to the observance of foolish and superstitious ceremonies, provided the conscience remains pure before God. Paul indeed intended nothing less, as the context clearly shows; for ceremonies are appointed for the worship of God, and they are also a part of our confession: they then who tear off faith from confession, take away from the sun its own heat. But Paul handles nothing of this kind in this place, but only speaks of our liberty in the use of meat and drink. Happy is he who condemns not himself, etc. Here he means to teach us, first, how we may lawfully use the gifts of God; and, secondly, how great an impediment ignorance is; and he thus teaches us, lest we should urge the uninstructed beyond the limits of their infirmity. But he lays down a general truth, which extends to all actions, — “” he says, “ he who is not conscious of doing wrong, when he rightly examines his own deeds.” For it happens, that many commit the worst of crimes without any scruple of conscience; but this happens, because they rashly abandon themselves, with closed eyes, to any course to which the blind and violent intemperance of the flesh may lead them; for there is much difference between insensibility and a right judgment. He then who examines things is happy, provided he is not bitten by an accusing conscience, after having honestly considered and weighed matters; for this assurance alone can render our works pleasing to God. Thus is removed that vain excuse which many allege on the ground of ignorance; inasmuch as their error is connected with insensibility and sloth: for if what they call good intention is sufficient, their examination, ACCORDING to which the Spirit of God estimates the deeds of men, is
- 183. superfluous. (434) (434) Theversion of [Calvin ] is, “Beatus qui non judicat seipsum in eo quod examinat ,” µακάριος ὅ µὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν ἐν ᾦ δοκιµάζει the latter part is rendered by [Beza ], and [Piscator ], “in eo quod approbat — in that which he approves;” by [Doddridge ], “ the thing which he alloweth;” by [Macknight ], “ what he approveth.” The reference is no doubt to the strong, who had “” who believed all meats lawful. The verb means to try, to examine, as well as to approve; but the latter seems to be its meaning here. To approve and to have faith appears in this case to be the same: then to have faith and not to abuse it by giving offense to a brother was to be a happy man, who did not condemn himself. The meaning then most suitable to the passage is this, “ the man! who condemns not himself by what he approves,” that is, by eating meat to the annoyance and stumbling of the weak. — Ed. BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, “Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. . Duties in regard to things indifferent Some things are unlawful in their own nature, and can never be right. Others are wrong because forbidden, and only as long as the prohibition continues, and only to the parties concerned. Others are wrong on the ground of expediency, and therefore are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. It is not always easy to discriminate these classes. I. There are, however, certain criteria by which we can distinguish the naturally wrong from the naturally indifferent. 1. One of these is to be found in our moral constitution. We can see intuitively that malice, envy, pride, etc., are in their nature wrong. They are evil, not because they are forbidden, nor because of their injurious tendency, but they are essentially evil. 2. The Scriptures condemn such things as are in their nature evil, not for one people, nor for a limited period, but for all men always. II. For things indifferent in their nature the scriptures lay down the following rules. 1. If prohibited for any special reason, they are unlawful while that prohibition lasts. 2. When the prohibition is removed, they are right or wrong according to circumstances. (1) They are wrong when their use or enjoyment would do harm to others. (2) They are right when no such evil is to be apprehended. (3) That principle is never to be sacrificed to expediency, i.e., when doing or not doing anything would imply the denial of an important truth. All these principles are illustrated by the apostle’s conduct and teaching. These were circumcision, observance of Jewish holy days, and eating meats prohibited by the Mosaic law, or which had been offered to idols. Paul taught— (a) That there was no harm in doing or neglecting them. If a man chose to circumcise his son, or to keep a holy day, or to abstain from certain meats, he was free to do so. (b) That he must not make his judgment a rule of duty to others. He must not condemn those who thought or acted differently (Rom_14:4).
- 184. (c) But ifany of these things became a source of evil, caused the weak to offend, then the law of love forbids our indulging in them, or availing ourselves of our Christian liberty, (d) But if any of these things were urged as a matter of duty, or a condition of salvation, then it became a sin to make them necessary. Paul, therefore, although he circumcised Timothy, refused to allow Titus to be circumcised. It is difficult to determine whether compliance with the prejudices of others is right or wrong. Our Lord disregarded Jewish prejudices in regard to the Sabbath. In other cases He complied in order to avoid giving offence. III. There are certain principles important to have fixed as guides of conduct. 1. Nothing is right or wrong which is not commanded or forbidden in Scripture. 2. We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not allow any rule of duty to be imposed on us. 3. In the use of this liberty, and while asserting and maintaining it, we should not so use it as to do harm to our neighbours. 4. Nothing indifferent can be a proper ground of Church discipline or a condition of Church fellowship. These principles are often violated, as in the course pursued by many on slavery, temperance, tobacco, dress, Church ceremonies, etc. (C. Hodge, D.D.) Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. The management and offices of conscience There is a great difference of opinion among good men respecting many things in religion. They are not altogether agreed respecting moral duties. There is one point, however, in which we are all agreed—which is, the necessity of every man’s following the dictates of his own conscience. The man that violates his own conscience stands condemned in his own mind; whilst “He is happy that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” I. The offices of conscience. It is given us as— 1. A secret monitor. “The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord.” It testifies beforehand respecting the quality of the act proposed, and operates as a stimulus if the act be good, and as a check if the act be evil. 2. An authoritative judge. It is God’s vicegerent in the soul. Sometimes conscience exercises this authority immediately, as in the cases of Adam and David. At other times it delays its verdict until some occasion give reason for speaking plainly the truth, as in the case of Joseph’s brethren. Sometimes it delivers judgment, and so produces humiliation, as in the case of Peter; at other times it will drive a man to despondency, as in the ease of Judas. II. Our duty to our consciences. We ought— 1. To get our consciences well informed. Conscience prescribes no rules, but gives testimony to a rule before existing. Nor does any man ever commit sin by following its dictates. St. Paul sinned, of course; but not because he followed the dictates of his conscience, but on account of his not having his conscience well informed. He did it “ignorantly, through unbelief.” We must always look to God to guide us by His Word
- 185. and Spirit. Norshould we hastily imagine that our views are correct; we must be jealous of ourselves lest Satan deceive us; “Take care that the light that is in you be not darkness,” etc. 2. To consult it on all occasions. To act first, and afterwards to make inquiries, is a certain way to involve ourselves in guilt. To do anything without a careful inquiry into the quality of the action, is presumptuous. Nor is the testimony of conscience always easily obtained; sometimes, indeed, it speaks instantaneously; but generally it requires time to make a fair estimate of the circumstances; and then, if they have respect to God only, we should consider the example of Christ; or if it be in respect to man, we should change places with the person concerned. If we doubt concerning the lawfulness of anything, we are self-condemned if we perform it, for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” We should pause, in such a case, and deliberate, until we see our way clearly—and determine not to proceed in anything until we are fully persuaded in our own minds. 3. To keep it upright and tender. Conscience may easily be warped, and silenced too, so that it will give no testimony until awakened by some flagrant enormity. III. The happiness of conformity to conscience. 1. Peace. 2. Confidence. 3. The favour of God. (C. Simeon, M.A.) The danger of contracting unallowable habits I. The foundation on which the caution in the text is built. 1. There are some things which are in themselves indifferent, but are sinful by accident. (1) When they are indulged to excess; when we spend too much time about them; or indulge them to a degree that is injurious to the health of body or peace of mind. (2) Indifferent things may become unlawful by being unseasonable. Not only the beauty and success, but the very lawfulness of an action often depends upon opportunity. (3) Another way whereby an indifferent action may become sinful is its giving offence to others, 2. There are other kinds of actions which some men inadvertently carry into common practice that are not only circumstantially but essentially evil in themselves. And the great danger of contracting any habits of this kind lies here, that they wear off a sense of the evil of them. II. In what manner this happiness is to be attained. 1. Let us see in what manner bad habits are originally contracted. (1) Sometimes by implicitly following the examples of others; especially their superiors; especially if these have been distinguished for their wisdom and piety. (2) Another thing that often draws men unawares into a sinful course of actions
- 186. is precipitancy orinattention to the nature and consequences of them. Before we indulge in any kind of temper or conduct that is like to become a habit, we should ask ourselves three questions. (a) What is it? is it in its own nature good, bad, or indifferent? (b) Whither does it tend? what influence will it have on the temper of my mind or the health of my body? (c) Where will it end? how will it appear in the review? and what will be the certain consequence if it settle into a habit? (3) Men are often betrayed into an unlawful conduct by venturing boldly on the very verge of vice or going to the utmost bounds of what is lawful. The precise limits of virtue and vice are indiscernible; or, rather, the passage from the one to the other is through so easy and gradual a shade that men oftentimes insensibly slide out of the former into the latter, and are got far into the regions of vice before they are aware. And the danger of this appears still greater when we consider the nearer approach we make to a sinful object, the stronger is its attraction. (4) Another common source of wrong conduct, and what frequently betrays men into bad habits, is the undue influence of the appetites and passions, in opposition to the dictates of conscience and reason. (5) Another thing that deceives some unwary minds into a wrong course of conduct is the false names that are given to sinful actions, whereby the evil of them is concealed and their deformity disguised. (6) The most common reason that men so generally condemn themselves in the things which they allow, is because they forget to form their judgment by the principles and their lives by the rules of Christianity. 2. How they are to be conquered. (1) The difficulty of the attempt. The reason that men so seldom succeed in their attempt to break off a bad habit is because they do not set about it in good earnest or in a right way. (2) If we would succeed in it we must often renew and reinforce our resolutions to persevere. (a) As all bad habits are contracted by frequent repetition of bad actions, so they are conquered by a frequent repetition of the opposite good ones. (b) Temptations are more weakened by declining than opposing them. (c) To suppress the first motions and avoid the remote occasions of sin is the easiest way to conquer it. (d) Let us especially beware of indolence, self-confidence, in a time of prosperity. For when we are least apprehensive of danger it is then oftentimes the nearest. III. Illustrate the truth of the proposition contained in the text, and show wherein the happiness here mentioned doth consist. This happiness may refer both to the present and future world. 1. With regard to the present world the man who condemns not himself in the thing which he alloweth is happy in two respects especially.
- 187. (1) This giveshim the best evidence he can have of his security. One who takes so much care to please God must have the fear of Him before his eyes and the love of Him in his heart. (2) This constant care to keep our heart and conduct conformable to the Word of God will inspire us with great freedom and comfort of mind when we have access to Him in prayer. And what more comprehensive happiness can we conceive than this? 2. This happiness reaches beyond the bounds of time, and will attend us in the world of spirits, where we shall be happy beyond all that words can paint or thought conceive. Conclusion: 1. How well is Christianity adapted to promote the happiness of civil society! If it does not permit us, even in matters of indifference, to do anything that would unnecessarily offend our neighbour, this implies our duty to cultivate the greatest tenderness and good-will towards him. 2. We see that, considering the condition of our natures as frail beings and our connection with creatures as imperfect as ourselves, we are under an indispensable necessity of exercising continual circumspection and frequent self-denial and patience in order to keep our conscience clear. 3. Let us take care, then, what habits we contract, and diligently examine those we have already contracted. (J. Mason, M.A.) Better be sure than sorry “Better be sure than sorry!” said a garden-worker, when his employer expressed a doubt whether it was necessary to cover a certain vegetation to protect it from frost. “Better be sure than sorry!”A man who is not sure is very likely to be sorry. He who takes things on trust will be quite likely to be cheated and disappointed at last. The business man who treads in uncertain paths, who is not sure of his course, is very likely to be sorry he has taken it. Keep on the safe side. Do not give yourself the benefit of every doubt. Be lenient to others’ faults, but strict regarding your own. If there be an act which in your own mind is doubtful or questionable in its character, take the course of wisdom and prudence. It would be a terrible thing to be mistaken in the final day; it is better to be sure here than to be sorry at the judgment-seat of Christ. (Christian Journal.) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith.— Doubtful actions 1. Doubt of its rectitude makes the action doubtful. 2. Doubtful actions bring condemnation. 3. Condemnation implies sin. 4. The sin lies in the want of faith. 5. Therefore all doubtful actions should be avoided. (J. Lyth, D.D.)
- 188. Doubtful things Resolved, thatI will never do anything about the lawfulness of which I am doubtful, unless I am equally doubtful whether it be lawful to omit the doing of it. (Jon. Edwards.) For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.— I. How this is often misapplied. 1. When all the virtues of the heathen— 2. The morality of the unconverted— 3. The proprieties of civilised life—are denounced as polished vice. II. How it ought to be applied. 1. To Christian believers. 2. As a rule for the regulation of all doubtful actions. (J. Lyth, D.D.) Whatsoever is not of faith is sin I. In order for works to be acceptable to god they must— 1. Be done by His grace. 2. Spring from a principle of faith. II. The spirit which leads a man to rely on his unassisted efforts as rendering him meet to receive grace is sin, because it involves a denial of— 1. Christ’s atonement. 2. Human infirmity. 3. The need of the Holy Spirit’s help. Lessons: 1. For reproof. 2. Correction. 3. Instruction in righteousness. (W. Webster, M.A.) Whatsoever is not of faith is sin I. Explain the proposition. Some actions are doubtful; in this case compliance is sinful, because it discovers— 1. A contempt of God’s authority and favour. 2. Light views of the evil of sin. 3. A great want of self-denial and resolution. 4. Some prevailing bad principle or motive of action. 5. And leads to greater irregularities.
- 189. II. Some practicalreflections. 1. How aggravated the guilt of presumptuous sin. 2. We should show a tender regard for others that we do not lead them into sin. 3. In all doubtful cases it is best to keep on the safe side. (J. Lyth, D.D.). HAWKER, “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. (23) And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I only detain the Reader at the last clause of this Chapter, to observe, in what a tone of the most solemn decision, the Lord declares by his servant, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin. We have a strong expression elsewhere, of the importance of faith, in the sight of God, when it is said, that without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb_11:6. But here, the want of it is said to be sin. And what becomes of the multitude of services, alms-givings, charities, and benevolent institutions, unfounded in faith? According to this Scripture, it is not enough to say, they have no claims to divine favor; but they are exposed to divine wrath. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, According to this statement, (and let it be remembered it is scriptural,) there can be nothing to escape the Lord’s displeasure, however specious it may appear to men, but what is undertaken with an eye to God in Christ. Every act of the creature, as the act of a sinful creature, must partake of sin. And, it is by faith only in Christ, that the iniquity of our most holy things are done away, Exo_28:38. But, if there be no respect to Christ in any act and faith of acceptance in Him, it is sin: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Perhaps it may be said, that upon this statement, all the high sounding deeds of thousands, which have filled the world with their praises, and their monuments, will come to nothing. No doubt they will. But it is not enough, according to this Scripture, merely to say, that they will come to nothing; for if they be found unfounded in Christ, they will be proved to be sin. And what a reverse of circumstances will take place at the great day of decision: while many who have given almost their body to be burned on the score of charity, but without faith in Christ, will be found in their very alms-deed in sin; many who have given nothing because they have had nothing to give, but the prayer of faith; will be then acknowledged, as the poor woman was by Christ when on earth, to have given a costly offering. Reader! may you and I have grace, to form a right estimate in all things. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. If you have [strong] faith, and feel liberty to partake of certain things, praise God! But have your strong faith before God, not before a brother who will stumble. There are things that you need to do in private if they offend a brother. He does not need to know what you do behind closed doors. If you do not offend another it is okey to practice your liberty Paul is saying to the strong Christian. It is public behavior that need to be regulated. If he does not feel condemned by his own conscience he can be happy to practice what he pleases and eat his meat that was offered to idols. Ironside, “If one has faith that he can safely do what another condemns, let him have it to himself before God and not flaunt it flagrantly before the weak.” Calvin, “The man, therefore, who discriminates in what he does is happy, so long as he is not stung by an accusing
- 190. conscience when hehas honestly weighed and considered what he is doing.” STEDMA Unfortunately, that is not a very good translation. It suggests that you are to keep quiet about your liberties, that you do not say anything to anybody, that you keep it between yourself and God. That really is not what Paul is saying. What he is saying is, "if you have faith, have it between yourself and God." That is, let God and God's Word be the basis for your faith, and nothing else. Be sure that what you are doing is not because of pride on your part, because you want to show off how free you are -- you are doing this because God has freed you by his Word. And, Paul says, if you do that, Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. {Rom 14:22b IV} If you have really based it on that, then your action will be one in which your conscience is free. You will not feel guilty and troubled as to whether you are acting beyond what the Word of God really says. You will be happy, free, blessed. But, if you do not, if you really have not settled this on the basis of Scripture, but are acting only because you want to indulge yourself; if you like this thing but you still feel a bit troubled by it; if you act then, you are going to be condemned by your conscience. And if you are condemned by your conscience, you will feel guilty. And if you act because you feel guilty, you are not acting out of faith, and, therefore, you are sinning. This is Paul's argument. "Without faith," Hebrews says, "it is impossible to please God," {Heb 11:6a}. Faith means believing what God has said. Thus, you must base your actions in Christian liberty on what the Word of God declares -- not about any specific thing, but the great principle of freedom which is set forth. ow, if you understand that, fine, Paul says. But be sure that you yourself are acting not out of pride, not out of mere self- indulgence, but out of a deep conviction that rests upon the Word and revelation of God. To sum up, what Paul has said to us is: Do not deliberately stumble or shock your brother or sister. Do not deliberately do things that will offend them, or even make them feel uncomfortable. Think about them, not yourself. Second: Give up your right when it threatens the peace or hinders the growth of another individual. Be alert to judge in that area. And third: ever act from doubt. Act only from conviction, by the Word, and by the Spirit of God. If these problems are all settled on that basis, a congregation will be moving gradually toward the great liberty that we have as children of God. What will happen in the eyes of the watching world? Christians will be seen to be free people, not controlled by scruples that limit them and narrow them in their enjoyment of God's great gifts. Yet, these things will not be of such importance that they are put at the heart and center of everything. The world will begin to see that the heart of the Gospel is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, the gifts of God. Those gifts, then, are the basis for freedom in all these areas. But you
- 191. are just asfree to say " o" to the indulgence of a gift as you are to say "Yes" to it. That is true freedom. You are not free if you think you have won your rights. That is not freedom. Freedom is the right to give up your rights, for good and proper cause. That is what the watching world will begin to see. These are wise words. Properly followed, they will gradually work out the differences of viewpoints we may have. But if they are ignored, the church is bound to go along with one side or the other, and division, anger, and upset will follow, and the whole cause of Christ will be injured by that. In our next study, we are going to see how Christ is our great example in this, and what will happen to us when we really begin to live on these terms. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin. BAR ES, “He that doubteth - He that is not fully satisfied in his mind; who does not do it with a clear conscience. The margin has it rendered correctly, “He that discerneth and putteth a difference between meats.” He that conscientiously believes, as the Jew did, that the Levitical law respecting the difference between meats was binding on Christians. Is damned - We apply this word almost exclusively to the future punishment of the wicked in hell. But it is of importance to remember, in reading the Bible, that this is not of necessity its meaning. It means properly to “condemn;” and here it means only that the person who should thus violate the dictates of his conscience would incur guilt, and would be blameworthy in doing it. But it does not affirm that he would inevitably sink to hell. The same construction is to be put on the expression in 1Co_11:29, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” For whatsoever ... - “Whatever is not done with a full conviction that it is right, is sinful; whatever is done when a man doubts whether it is right, is sin.” This is evidently the fair interpretation of this place. Such the connection requires. It does not affirm that all or any of the actions of impenitent and unbelieving people are sinful, which is true, but not the truth taught here; nor does it affirm that all acts which are not performed by those who have faith in the Lord Jesus, are sinful; but the discussion pertains to Christians; and the whole scope of the passage requires us to understand the apostle as simply saying that a man should not do a thing doubting its correctness; that he should have a strong conviction that what he does is right; and that if he has “not” this conviction, it is sinful. The rule is of universal application. In all cases, if a man does a thing which he does not “believe” to be right, it is a sin, and his conscience will condemn
- 192. him for it.It may be proper, however, to observe that the converse of this is not always true, that if a man believes a thing to be right, that therefore it is not sin. For many of the persecutors were conscientious Joh_16:2; Act_26:9; and the murderers of the Son of God did it ignorantly Act_3:17; 1Co_2:8; and yet were adjudged as guilty of enormous crimes; compare Luk_11:50-51; Act_2:23, Act_2:37. In this chapter we have a remarkably fine discussion of the nature of Christian charity. Differences of “opinion” will arise, and people will be divided into various sects; but if the rules which are laid down in this chapter were followed, the contentions, and altercations, and strifes among Christians would cease. Had these rules been applied to the controversies about rites, and forms, and festivals, that have arisen, peace might have been preserved. Amid all such differences, the great question is, whether there is true love to the Lord Jesus. If there is, the apostle teaches us that we have no right to judge a brother, or despise him, or contend harshly with him. Our object should be to promote peace, to aid him in his efforts to become holy, and to seek to build him up in holy faith. CLARKE, “And he that doubteth - This verse is a necessary part of the preceding, and should be read thus: But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. The meaning is sufficiently plain. He that feeds on any kind of meats prohibited by the Mosaic law, with the persuasion in his mind that he may be wrong in so doing, is condemned by his conscience for doing that which he has reason to think God has forbidden. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin - Whatever he does, without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, (see Rom_14:22) is to him sin; for he does it under a conviction that he may be wrong in so doing. Therefore, if he makes a distinction in his own conscience between different kinds of meats, and yet eats of all indifferently, he is a sinner before God; because he eats either through false shame, base compliance, or an unbridled appetite; and any of these is in itself a sin against the sincerity, ingenuousness, and self- denying principles of the Gospel of Christ. Some think that these words have a more extensive signification, and that they apply to all who have not true religion, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; every work of such persons being sinful in the sight of a holy God, because it does not proceed from a pure motive. On this ground our Church says, Art. xiii, “Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they are not of faith in Jesus Christ; yes, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.” To this we may add, that without faith it is impossible to please God; every thing is wrong where this principle is wanting. There are few readers who have not remarked that the last three verses of this epistle (Rom_16:25-27) appear to stand in their present place without any obvious connection; and apparently after the epistle is concluded. And it is well known to critics, that two MSS. in uncial letters, the Cod. A and I, with upwards of 100 others, together with the Slavonic, the later Syriac and Arabic, add those verses at the end of the fourteenth chapter. The transposition is acknowledged by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Theodulus, Damascenus, and Tertullian; see Wetstein. Griesbach inserts them at the end of this chapter as their proper place; and most learned men approve of this transposition. It may be necessary to repeat the words here that the reader may see with what propriety they connect with the subject which terminates the
- 193. fourteenth chapter asit now stands. Rom_14:23 : And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom_16:25 : Now, to him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, (according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, Rom_16:26 : But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith); Rom_16:27 : To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. Rom_15:1 : We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, etc. These words certainly connect better with the close of the fourteenth chapter and the beginning of the fifteenth than they do with the conclusion of the sixteenth, where they are now generally found; but I shall defer my observations upon them till I come to that place, with only this remark, that the stablishing mentioned Rom_16:25, corresponds well with the doubting, Rom_14:23, and indeed the whole matter of these verses agrees so well with the subject so largely handled in the preceding chapter, that there can be very little doubt of their being in their proper place if joined to the end of this chapter, as they are in the preceding MSS. and versions. GILL, “And he that doubteth,.... Or makes a difference between meats and meats, or is in suspense whether any difference should be observed or not, is damned; not with everlasting damnation, which is not the consequent of, nor connected with such an action, as eating of a thing indifferent, with a scrupulous conscience; but such an one is condemned in his own conscience; he is self-condemned, his conscience condemns him for what he himself does; and he is self-condemned in judging and censuring others, for the same things: so the Syriac renders it, לה ,אתחייב "he becomes guilty", or he contracts guilt to himself, or is self-condemned; and so the Arabic, "he is already condemned", becausebecausebecausebecause he eatethhe eatethhe eatethhe eateth not of faithnot of faithnot of faithnot of faith: or of a full persuasion in his own mind that he is right in eating; he halts between two opinions, and is doubtful in his own mind what is best to do, and therefore, whilst this is his case, he ought to refrain: for whatsoever is not of faith is sinfor whatsoever is not of faith is sinfor whatsoever is not of faith is sinfor whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is a general rule, or axiom, which is not only applicable to the present case, but to any other, whether of a natural, civil, moral, or evangelic kind: "whatsoever does not spring from faith", as the Arabic version renders it, cannot be excused of sin; whatever is not agreeable to the word and doctrine of faith, ought not to be done; whatever is done without faith, or not in the exercise of it, is culpable, for without faith nothing can be
- 194. pleasing to God;and whatever is contrary to the persuasion of a man's own mind, is so far criminal, as it is a violation of his conscience; whatever men do, especially in a religious way, they ought to make faith of it, or to be fully persuaded of it in their own minds, or they act amiss: in the Arabic version, the Complutensian edition, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, Rom_16:25, "now to him that is of power", &c. are here added; which have induced some to think, that the apostle intended to have finished his epistle here; but having more time, and other things occurred to write of, he proceeded. HE RY, “Consider the evil of giving offence, and what an abuse it is of our Christian liberty. He grants that all things indeed are pure. We may lawfully eat flesh, even those meats which were prohibited by the ceremonial law; but, if we abuse this liberty, it turns into sin to us: It is evil to him that eats with offence. Lawful things may be done unlawfully. - Eats with offence, either carelessly or designedly giving offence to his brethren. It is observable that the apostle directs his reproof most against those who gave the offence; not as if those were not to be blamed who causelessly and weakly took the offence from their ignorance of Christian liberty, and the want of that charity which is not easily provoked and which thinketh no evil (he several times tacitly reflects upon them), but he directs his speech to the strong, because they were better able to bear the reproof, and to begin the reformation. For the further pressing of this rule, we may here observe two directions which have relation to it: - First, Let not then your good be evil spoken of (Rom_14:16) - take heed of doing any thing which may give occasion to others to speak evil, either of the Christian religion in general, or of your Christian liberty in particular. The gospel is your good; the liberties and franchises, the privileges and immunities, granted by it, are your good; your knowledge and strength of grace to discern and use your liberty in things disputed are your good, a good which the weak brother hath not. Now let not this be evil spoken of. It is true we cannot hinder loose and ungoverned tongues from speaking evil of us, and of the best things we have; but we must not (if we can help it) give them any occasion to do it. Let not the reproach arise from any default of ours; as 1Ti_4:12, Let no man despise thee, that is, do not make thyself despicable. So here, Do not use your knowledge and strength in such a manner as to give occasion to people to call it presumption and loose walking, and disobedience to God's law. We must deny ourselves in many cases for the preservation of our credit and reputation, forbearing to do that which we rightly know we may lawfully do, when our doing it may be a prejudice to our good name; as, when it is suspicious and has the appearance of evil, or when it becomes scandalous among good people, or has any way a brand upon it. In such a case we must rather cross ourselves than shame ourselves. Though it be but a little folly, it may be like a dead fly, very prejudicial to one that is in reputation for wisdom and honour, Ecc_10:1. We may apply it more generally. We should manage all our good duties in such a manner that they may not be evil spoken of. That which for the matter of it is good and unexceptionable may sometimes, by mismanagement, be rendered liable to a great deal of censure and reproach. Good praying, preaching, and discourse, may often, for want of prudence in ordering the time, the expression, and other circumstances to edification, be evil spoken of. It is indeed their sin who do speak evil of that which is good for the sake of any such circumstantial errors, but it is our folly if we give any occasion to do so. As we tender the reputation of the good we profess and practise, let us so order it that it may not be evil spoken of.
- 195. Secondly, Hast thoufaith? Have it to thyself before God, Rom_14:22. It is not meant of justifying faith (that must not be hid, but manifested by our works), but of a knowledge and persuasion of our Christian liberty in things disputed. “Hast thou clearness in such a particular? Art thou satisfied that thou mayest eat all meats, and observe all days (except the Lord's day) alike? Have it to thyself, that is, enjoy the comfort of it in thy own bosom, and do not trouble others by the imprudent use of it, when it might give offence, and cause thy weak brother to stumble and fall.” In these indifferent things, though we must never contradict our persuasion, yet we may sometimes conceal it, when the avowing of it will do more hurt than good. Have it to thyself - a rule to thyself (not to be imposed upon others, or made a rule to them), or a rejoicing to thyself. Clearness in doubtful matters contributes very much to our comfortable walking, as it frees us from those scruples, jealousies, and suspicions, which those who have not such clearness are entangled in endlessly. Compare Gal_6:4, Let every man prove his own work, that is, bring it to the touchstone of the word and try it by that so exactly as to be well satisfied in what he does; and then he shall have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. Paul had faith in these things: I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself; but he had it to himself, so as not to use his liberty to the offence of others. How happy were it for the church if those that have a clearness in disputable things would be satisfied to have it to themselves before God, and not impose those things upon others, and make them terms of communions, than which nothing is more opposite to Christian liberty, nor more destructive both to the peace of churches and the peace of consciences. That healing method is not the less excellent for being common: in things necessary let there be unity, things unnecessary let there be liberty, and in both let there be charity, then all will be well quickly. - Have it to thyself before God. The end of such knowledge is that, being satisfied in our liberty, we may have a conscience void of offence towards God, and let that content us. That is the true comfort which we have before God. Those are right indeed that are so in God's sight. JAMISO , “And — rather, “But” he that doubteth is damned — On the word “damnation,” see on Rom_13:2. if he eat, because he eateth not of faith — On the meaning of “faith” here, see on Rom_14:22. for whatsoever is not of faith is sin — a maxim of unspeakable importance in the Christian life. Note, (1) Some points in Christianity are unessential to Christian fellowship; so that though one may be in error upon them, he is not on that account to be excluded either from the communion of the Church or from the full confidence of those who have more light. This distinction between essential and non-essential truths is denied by some who affect more than ordinary zeal for the honor and truth of God. But they must settle the question with our apostle. (2) Acceptance with God is the only proper criterion of right to Christian fellowship. Whom God receives, men cannot lawfully reject (Rom_14:3, Rom_14:4). (3) As there is much self-pleasing in setting up narrow standards of Christian fellowship, so one of the best preservatives against the temptation to do this will be found in the continual remembrance that Christ is the one Object for whom all
- 196. Christians live, andto whom all Christians die; this will be such a living and exalted bond of union between the strong and the weak as will overshadow all their lesser differences and gradually absorb them (Rom_14:7-9). (4) The consideration of the common judgment-seat at which the strong and the weak shall stand together will be found another preservative against the unlovely disposition to sit in judgment one on another (Rom_14:10-12). (5) How brightly does the supreme Divinity of Christ shine out in this chapter! The exposition itself supersedes further illustration here. (6) Though forbearance be a great Christian duty, indifference to the distinction between truth and error is not thereby encouraged. The former is, by the tax, made an excuse for the latter. But our apostle, while teaching “the strong” to bear with “the weak,” repeatedly intimates in this chapter where the truth really lay on the points in question, and takes care to call those who took the wrong side “the weak” (Rom_14:1, Rom_14:2, Rom_14:14). (7) With what holy jealousy ought the purity of the conscience to be guarded, since every deliberate violation of it is incipient perdition (Rom_14:15, Rom_14:20)! Some, who seem to be more jealous for the honor of certain doctrines than for the souls of men, enervate this terrific truth by asking how it bears upon the “perseverance of the saints”; the advocates of that doctrine thinking it necessary to explain away what is meant by “destroying the work of God” (Rom_14:20), and “destroying him for whom Christ died” (Rom_14:15), for fear of the doctrinal consequences of taking it nakedly; while the opponents of that doctrine are ready to ask, How could the apostle have used such language if he had believed that such a catastrophe was impossible? The true answer to both lies in dismissing the question as impertinent. The apostle is enunciating a great and eternal principle in Christian Ethics - that the willful violation of conscience contains within itself a seed of destruction; or, to express it otherwise, that the total destruction of the work of God in the renewed soul, and, consequently, the loss of that soul for eternity, needs only the carrying out to its full effect of such violation of the conscience. Whether such effects do take place, in point of fact, the apostle gives not the most distant hint here; and therefore that point must be settled elsewhere. But, beyond all doubt, as the position we have laid down is emphatically expressed by the apostle, so the interests of all who call themselves Christians require to be proclaimed and pressed on every suitable occasion. (8) Zeal for comparatively small points of truth is a poor substitute for the substantial and catholic and abiding realities of the Christian life (Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18). (9) “Peace” among the followers of Christ is a blessing too precious to themselves, and, as a testimony to them that are without, too important, to be ruptured for trifles, even though some lesser truths be involved in these (Rom_14:19, Rom_14:20). Nor are those truths themselves disparaged or endangered thereby, but the reverse. (10) Many things which are lawful are not expedient. In the use of any liberty, therefore, our question should be, not simply, Is this lawful? but even if so, Can it be used with safety to a brother’s conscience? - How will it affect my brother’s soul (Rom_14:21)? It is permitted to no Christian to say with Cain, “Amos I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen_4:9). (11) Whenever we are in doubt as to a point of duty - where abstinence is manifestly sinless, but compliance not clearly lawful - the safe course is ever to be preferred, for to do otherwise is itself sinful. (12) How exalted and beautiful is the Ethics of Christianity - by a few great principles teaching us how to steer our course amidst practical difficulties, with equal regard to
- 197. Christian liberty, love,and confidence! Gary Vanderet Whatever you believe about these neutral issues is between you and God, says Paul. Keep it that way. Whether you are "strong" and feel free to do a lot of things, or whether you are "weak" and feel that you can't, keep it a secret. You don't have to put your views on display or force them upon others. ii. In terms of behavior, Paul concludes with a word to both groups. John Stott puts it this way: "To the 'strong' Christian, he writes: 'Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.' The 'strong' Christian is blessed because his conscience approves of his eating everything, and he can follow his conscience without guilt. To the 'weak' Christian, he writes: 'But he who doubts [he who is plagued by misgivings because his conscience keeps giving him vacillating signals] is condemned if he eats, [probably by his conscience, not by God] because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.'"[4] Here Paul seems to elevate the significance of our conscience. Though conscience certainly is not an infallible guide, and we ought to educate it, we ought not go against it. Let me conclude with a story that Ray Stedman shared about Dr. Harry Ironside, which illustrates the apostle's point: At a church picnic, Dr. Ironside met a man who had been converted from the Moslem faith. While they were talking, a girl brought a basket of sandwiches up to this man and asked if would like one. He said, "What kind do you have?" "Oh," she said, "I'm afraid all we have left are ham and pork." He said, "Don't you have any beef?" She replied, " o, they are all gone." "Well," he said, " o thank you. I don't eat ham or pork." The girl responded, knowing he was a Christian, "I am really surprised. Don't you know that now you are freed from those food restrictions and you can eat whatever you want?" He said, "Yes, I know that. I know I am free to eat pork, but I am also free not to eat it. I'm still involved with my family back in the ear East, and I know that when I go home once a year, and I come up to my father's door, the first question he will ask me is, 'Have those infidels taught you to eat the filthy hog meat yet?' If I have to say to him, 'Yes, father,' I will be banished from that home, and have no further witness in it. But if I can say, as I have always been able to say, ' o, father, no pork has ever passed my lips,' then I have admittance to the family circle and I am free to tell them the joy I have found in Jesus Christ. Therefore I am free to eat, or I am free not to eat, as the case may be."[5] We are just as free to say to no as we are to say yes when it comes to choosing whether to exercise our liberty. That is true freedom. If you cannot limit your liberty for the sake of building up others, then you may not be as free as you think. True freedom is the power to give up your rights for the sake of others. That is the kind of freedom the watching world needs to see.
- 198. CALVI , “23.Buthe who is undecided, etc. He very fitly expresses in one word the character of that mind which vacillates and is uncertain as to what ought to be done; for he who is undecided undergoes alternate changes, and in the midst of his various deliberations is held suspended by uncertainty. As then the main thing in a good work is the persuasion of a mind conscious of being right before God, and as it were a calm assurance, nothing is more opposed to the acceptance of our works than vacillation. (435) And, oh! that this truth were fixed in the minds of men, that nothing ought to be attempted except what the mind feels assured is acceptable to God, men would not then make such an uproar, as they often do now, nor waver, nor blindly hurry onward wherever their own imagination may lead them. For if our way of living is to be confined to this moderation, that no one is to touch a morsel of meat with a doubting conscience, how much greater caution is to be exercised in the greatest things? And whatever is not from faith, etc. The reason for this condemnation is, that every work, however splendid and excellent in appearance, is counted as sin, except it BE FOUNDED on a right conscience; for God regards not the outward display, but the inward obedience of the heart, by this alone is an estimate made of our works. Besides, how can that be obedience, when any one undertakes what he is not persuaded is approved by God? Where then such a doubt exists, the individual is justly charged with prevarication; for he proceeds in opposition to the testimony of his, own conscience. The wordfaith is to be taken here for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or, so to speak, for a firm assurance, and not that of any kind, but what is derived from the truth of God. Hence doubt or uncertainty vitiates all our actions, however specious they may otherwise be. Now, since a pious mind can never acquiesce with certainty in anything but the word of God, all fictitious modes of worship do in this case vanish away, and whatever works there may be which originate in the brains of men; for while everything which is not from faith is condemned, rejected is whatever is not supported and approved by God’ word. It is at the same time by no means sufficient that what we do is approved by the word of God, except the mind, relying on this persuasion, prepares itself cheerfully to do its work. Hence the first thing in a right conduct, in order that our minds may at no time fluctuate, is this, that we, depending on God’ word, confidently PROCEED wherever it may call us. (435) The Greek is ὁ διακρινόµενος “ who discerns,” that is, a difference as to meats; so [Doddridge ], [Macknight ], and [Chalmers ] regard its meaning. [Beza ] has “qui dubitat — who doubts,” and so our version. The word used by [Calvin ] is dijudicat , which properly means to judge between things, to discern, but ACCORDING to his explanation it means to judge in two ways, to be undecided. The verb no doubt admits of these two meanings; it is used evidently in the sense of making or putting a difference, but only, as some say, in the active voice. There are indeed two places where it seems to have this meaning in its passive or middle form, Jas_2:4, and Jud_1:22. But as Paul has before used it in this Epistle, Rom_4:20, in the sense of hesitating, staggering, or doubting, we may reasonably suppose that it has this meaning here, and especially as in every place where he expresses the other idea, he has EMPLOYED the active form. See 1Co_4:7;1Co_11:29; etc. — Ed. Footnotes: Romans 14:11 Isaiah 45:23 Romans 14:14 Or that nothing