TRV
See on the biblical-era map
Study This Verse
Commentary on Romans 14 verses 1–23
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, Acts xxviii. 24. Now those that had been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial appointments touching meats and days. This, which had been bred in the bone with them, could hardly be got out of the flesh, even after they turned Christians; especially with some of them, who were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They were not well instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ, and therefore retained the ceremonial institutions, and practised accordingly; while other Christians that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian liberty, made no such difference. (1.) Concerning meats (v. 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that he may eat all things—he is well satisfied that the ceremonial distinction of meats into clean and unclean is no longer in force, but that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; nothing unclean of itself, v. 14.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, Acts x. 15, 28. This the strong Christian is clear in, and practises accordingly, eating what is set before him, and asking no question for conscience' sake, 1 Cor. x. 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. (2.) Concerning days, v. 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 such a distinction and 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. iv. 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, v. 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, proslambavesthe—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 and condemn him." Receive him, not to expose him, but to instruct and strengthen him. See 1 Cor. i. 10; Phil. iii. 15, 16.
2.Those who are strong must by no means despise the weak; nor those who are weak judge the strong, v. 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, v. 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, 1 Pet. i. 5; Jude 24.
(2.)Because they are servants to their own master (v. 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. iii. 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 be upright, he may comfortably appeal from thy rash censure."
(3.)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, v. 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 the yoke of legal 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 1 Tim. iv. 4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from 1 Cor. x. 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, Matt. xiv. 19; xv. 36; Luke ix. 16; John vi. 11; Matt. xxvi. 26, 27; Acts xxvii. 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 (v. 7, 8), and the ground of it, v. 9.
[1.]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 (v. 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. iii. 17), with an eye to the will of Christ as our rule, to the glory of Christ as our end, Phil. i. 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?
[2.]The ground of this, v. 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 (Acts x. 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, Phil. ii. 8, 9. It was after he had died and risen that he said, All power is given unto me (Matt. xxviii. 18), and presently he exerts that power in issuing out commissions, v. 19, 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,
(4.)Because both the one and the other must shortly give an account, v. 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, 2 Cor. v. 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 (v. 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. xlv. 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, Acts xvii. 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; 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. xli. 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 (v. 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. ii. 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. vi. 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.
(5.)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 (v. 17, 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, &c. 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, Matt. iii. 2; iv. 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. ix. 10), abstaining from some meats religiously (Lev. xi. 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. ii. 21, 22. The matter is left at large. Every creature of God is good, 1 Tim. iv. 4. So, as to other things, it is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision (Gal. v. 6; vi. 15; 1 Cor. vii. 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 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. xxxii. 17. Thirdly, It is in these things to serve Christ (v. 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 v. 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, v. 14 and 23, which two verses explain this, and give us a rule not to act against the dictates,
(1.)Of a mistaken conscience, v. 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. xi. 44; Deut. xiv. 2, 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 they were all unclean (Tit. i. 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, Acts x. 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 ch. xiv. 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, Matt. xv. 5, 6. But this would not serve any more than Paul's erroneous conscience would justify his rage against Christianity (Acts xxvi. 9), or theirs, John xvi. 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 (v. 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, Phil. iii. 15, 16.—For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Taking it in general, it is the same with that of the apostle (Heb. xi. 6), Without faith it is impossible to please God. Whatever we do in religion, it will not turn to any good account, except we do it from a 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 (v. 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, 1 John iii. 21.
4.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 v. 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, e 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 Matt. xviii. 6, 10.
(2.)Of guilt 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, 1 Cor. viii. 9-11. To the same purport (v. 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 (1 Cor. viii. 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.
[1.]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, 1 Cor. xii. 31. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth, 1 Cor. viii. 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, v. 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. Me apollye. 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 (John vi. 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 1 Cor. viii. 10, 11.
[3.]Consider the work of God (v. 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, Phil. i. 6. Observe, The same for whom Christ died (v. 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. ii. 10; 1 Cor. iii. 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 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 (v. 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 1 Tim. iv. 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, Eccl. x. 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. Secondly, Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God, v. 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. vi. 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.
A man who is weak in his faith is to be accepted and not rejected. For it is one thing to be weak in faith but quite another to be an unbeliever altogether. An unbeliever has no faith at all, but one who is merely weak has doubts about certain aspects of the faith.
But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water." If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God.
As far as matters of indifference are concerned, Paul says that it does not matter whether we do them or not, but when it comes to loving our neighbor, they cease to be matters of indifference. Any regulation concerning food is a matter of indifference, because everything has been sanctified by the power of Christ. But not everyone is so strong in his faith that he is in no danger of being corrupted by these things. Whether we injure such a person or do not injure him is not to be regarded as a matter of indifference, but we are to take great care to ensure that no one loses his soul by eating something which he thinks it might be wrong to eat.
As I mentioned in my prologue to the epistle, those who led the Romans to faith had mixed it up with the law because they were Jews, which is why some of them thought that they should not eat meat. But others, who followed Christ apart from the law, thought otherwise, that it was permissible to eat meat, and for this reason there were disputes among them. The apostle tried to solve these disputes by arguing that the person who abstained from eating gained no advantage in the sight of God, nor did the one who ate lose anything thereby. He says that the person who is afraid to eat because the Jews had forbidden it is weak. He wants this person to be left to his own judgment, so as not to be hurt and depart from that love which is a mother of souls.
I Am aware that to most what is here said is a difficulty. And therefore I must first give the subject of the whole of this passage, and what he wishes to correct in writing this. What does he wish to correct then? There were many of the Jews which believed, who adhered of conscience to the Law, and after their believing, still kept to the observance of meats, as not having courage yet to quit the service of the Law entirely. Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine's flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law. Others again were farther advanced, and kept up no one thing of the kind, who became to those, who did keep them, distressing and offensive, by reproaching them, accusing them, driving them to despondency. Therefore the blessed Paul, out of fear lest, from a wish to be right about a trifle, they should overthrow the whole, and from a wish to bring them to indifferency about what they ate, should put them in a fair way for deserting the faith, and out of a zeal to put everything right at once, before the fit opportunity was come, should do mischief on vital points, so by this continual rebuking setting them adrift from their agreement in Christ, and so they should remain not righted in either respect: observe what great judgment he uses and how he concerns himself with both interests with his customary wisdom. For neither does he venture to say to those who rebuke, Ye are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, Ye are doing right, lest he should make them the more vehement accusers: but he makes his rebuke to square with each. And in appearance he is rebuking the stronger, but he pours forth all he has to say against the other in his address to these. For the kind of correction most likely to be less grating is, when a person addresses some one else, while he is striking a blow at a different person, since this does not permit the person rebuked to fly into a passion, and introduces the medicine of correction unperceived. See now with what judgment he does this, and how well-timed he is with it. For after saying, "make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof," then he proceeds to the discussion of these points, that he might not seem to be speaking in defence of those who were the rebukers, and were for eating of anything. For the weaker part ever requires more forethought. Wherefore he aims his blow against the strong, immediately saying as follows, "Him that is weak in the faith." You see one blow immediately given to him. For by calling him weak, he points out that he is not healthy. Then he adds next, "receive," and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. "Not to doubtful disputations." See, he has laid on a third stroke. For here he makes it appear that his error is of such a nature, that even those who do not transgress in the same manner, and who nevertheless admit him to their affection, and are earnestly bent upon curing him, are at doubt. You see how in appearance he is conversing with these, but is rebuking others secretly and without giving offence. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, "One believeth that he may eat all things," commending him on the score of his faith. "Another who is weak, eateth herbs," disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness.
From here on Paul indirectly begins to upbraid those who thought they were strong and who therefore ate meat without restraint. Paul tells them not to judge others according to their opinions when the law does not judge them.
Paul says that we should receive the weak man in order that we might support his weakness by our strength. Neither should we criticize his opinions by daring to pass judgment on someone else’s heart, which we do not see.
The weak were those who continued to observe the law.
Who would be so inhumane as to lay aside any sympathy for the weak and trample on them, not even offering them the help they need in adversity? Paul makes this an absolute command and accompanies it with the teaching that the law and all the behavior it entailed has been abolished in Christ. Yet he was conscious that the ethnic heritage weighed more heavily on the Jew, who felt that he would be sinning against his brothers if he went against the law.
1081. After showing how one ought to become perfect [n. 953], the Apostle now shows how the perfect should act toward the imperfect. First, he shows that they ought not scandalize or judge them; secondly, that they ought to uphold them, in chapter 15 [n. 1142]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he forbids improper judgments; 533 secondly, he forbids placing stumbling blocks before the weak [v. 13b; n. 1115]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he gives an admonition; secondly, he explains it [v. 2; n. 1083]; thirdly, he assigns a reason [v. 3b; n. 1090]. 1082. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the early Church some of the Jews converted to Christ believed that the practices of the Law must be observed along with the Gospel, as is clear from Ac (v. 15). These the Apostle calls "weak in the faith of Christ," as though not yet perfectly believing that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation. He calls those perfect or strong in faith who believed that the faith of Christ was to be observed without the practices of the Law. And there were some of both types among the believers in Rome. Therefore, the Apostle addresses the perfect in faith, saying: We have said that you should put on the Lord Jesus Christ, but welcome, i.e., join to yourselves in a spirit of charity and support, the man who is weak in faith, to whom can be applied the words of Wis (9:5): "I am a man who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws"; "Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you" (Rom 15:7); "Help a poor man for the commandment’s sake" (Sir 29:9). But not for disputes of opinions, i.e., not discussing the fact that one’s opinion is contrary to another’s. For those who observed the practices of the Law considered as violators those who did not observe them; and those who did not observe them despised as errant and ignorant those who did observe them: "Their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them" (Rom 2:15). 534 1083. Then when he says, One believes, he explains what he had said: first, he shows who are weak in faith; secondly, how disputes over opinions are to be avoided [v. 3; n. 1089]. 1084. In regard to the first it should be noted that among the observances of the Law one dealt with distinguishing among foods, because some foods were forbidden in the Law, as is clear from Lev (11:2ff). Therefore, the Apostle mentions this in particular, saying: One believes, namely, the one perfect in faith, that he may eat anything, since he does not consider himself bound to the observance of the Law: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man" (Mt 15:11); "Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (I Tim 4:4). 1085. It was not because they were naturally unclean that certain foods were forbidden in the Old Law. For just as in the case of words the word, "fool" signifies something not good, although the word itself is good, so in the case of animals, some animal is good according to its nature but evil in what it signifies, as a pig which signifies uncleanness. Therefore, the ancients were forbidden to eat its flesh, for in avoiding it they signified avoidance of uncleanness. For the entire life of that earlier people was centered on figures. But with the coming of Christ, Who is the truth, the figures ceased. 1086. He adds in regard to the weak: while the weak man eats only vegetables. As if to say: He eats those foods which involve nothing unclean forbidden in the Law. For among the classes of animals, say of land, sky and water, some classes were permitted and some forbidden; but no herbs or trees were forbidden, as is clear in Lev (v. 11). 535 There can be two reasons for this: one is that the produce of the earth had been granted man to eat from the beginning: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food" (Gen 1:29). But the first permission to eat flesh seems to have been granted after the flood. Hence it says in Gen (9:3): "As I gave you the green plants, I give you everything," I.e., types of animals. The other reason is that in Paradise man had transgressed the first prohibition about abstaining from certain fruits of the earth, as is clear in Gen (v. 3); for this reason a similar prohibition was not repeated. 1087. But since the practices of the Law ceased during the passion of Christ, it seems out of place for the Apostle to permit those weak in faith to abstain from foods forbidden in the Law, a practice no longer granted to Christians by the Church. But according to Augustine, three periods of time respecting the practices of the Law must be distinguished. The first is the time before Christ, when the practices of the Law were in full vigor and still alive. The second is the time after the passion of Christ but before the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices were dead, because no one was bound by them; and when they were practiced, no one benefited by them. Although dead, they were not death-dealing, because the Jews converted to Christ could practice them without sin. It is to this time that the Apostle refers here. The third is the time after the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices of the Law were not only dead but death-dealing, so that whoever practiced them sinned mortally. 1088. The Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1512] explains this in another way, namely, that the weak person is the one prone to fall into sensual vices. Such a person should be 536 advised to eat vegetables, i.e., mild and meager foods, which do not ferment vices, and to abstain from foods which stimulate sensual desire. But a stronger person believes that he can eat anything without danger. This difference appears between Christ’s disciples, who did not fast because they were strengthened by Christ’s presence, and the disciples of John the Baptist, who fasted. Hence, too, those who perform penances abstain from certain foods, not because they are unclean, but in order to restrain sensual desire. 1089. Then when he says, Let him who eats, he explains how to avoid differences of opinion. First, in regard to the perfect he says: Let him who eats, namely, with a secure conscience or even without danger of sensual desire, not despise him who abstains from certain foods, as weak in faith or prone to sensual vices: "Woe to you, despiser, will you not be despised in turn?" (Is 33:1); "He who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16). Secondly, in regard to the weak, saying: and let him who abstains from certain foods, either because he is weak in faith or because he is prone to sensual desire, not pass judgment on him who eats as though he were a transgressor of the Law or as rushing headlong into sensual vices: "Judge not that you may not be judged" (Mt 7:1); "You have no excuse, O man, when you judge another" (Rom 2:1). 1090. Then when he says, for God has welcomed him, he assigns two reasons why we should abstain from false judgment. The second is given at his Master [v. 4b; n. 1094]; the third at You who judge [v. 10; n. 1105]. The first reason is based on the authority of the one judging, hence: first, he shows that this authority belongs to God [v. 3c]; 537 secondly, he concludes that judgment does not belong to men [v. 4; n. 1092]. 1091. First, therefore, he says: I have been correct in saying that one who eats should not judge him who does not, for God has welcomed him: "I took two staff," i.e., two peoples (Zech 11:7); "He drew me out of many waters" (Ps 18:16). But the one who is drawn to the judgment of a superior should not be judged by an inferior. 1092. Therefore, he concludes, Who are you, i.e., of what authority and power are you, to pass judgment on the servant of another? For a judge must have authority, as it says in Ex (2:14): "Who made you a prince and a judge over us?" "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you" (Lk 12:14). 1093. But from this reasoning it seems to follow that a man’s judgment about another man is illicit. The answer is that a man’s judgment is licit, as long as he acts with divinely granted authority. Hence, it says in Dt (1:16): "Hear them and judge what is righteous," and later he adds, "Judgment is God’s," i.e., passed with God’s authority. But if someone desires to usurp judgment over matters not divinely granted him to judge, the judgment is rash, just as if a judge delegated by the Pope wished to go beyond the limits of his mandate. But God has reserved to Himself the judging of hidden things, which are mainly the thoughts of the heart and the future. Therefore, if anyone presumed to judge about these matters, the judgment would be rash. Hence Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: "A judgment is rash in these two cases, since there is uncertainty about the intention with which something was done, or uncertainty about the future of one who now seems to be good or evil." 538 1094. Then when he says: It is before his own master that he stands or falls, he presents the second reason, which is taken from the end of merit or demerit. For one could say that although a man has no authority to judge, he should involve himself in the judgment of another on account of the harm or benefit that comes from it. But the Apostle says here that this pertains to God rather than to man. And so even for this reason we should leave to God judgments about our neighbor, unless we are acting in His stead in judging by authority committed to us. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he gives an example [v. 5; n. 1097]; thirdly, he proves the proposition [v. 6; n. 1099]. 1095. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes that whatever happens to man pertains to God when he says: Before his master he stands, i.e., by doing right: "Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem" (Ps 122:2, or falls, i.e., by sinning: "Fallen, no more to rise is the virgin Israel" (Am 5:1). He presents it as a disjunctive, stands or falls, on account of the uncertainty, for many seem to fall who stand, and vice versa, as it says in Ec (8:10): "then I saw the wicked buried; they used to go in and out of the holy place and were praised in the city, where they had done such things." But the Apostle is speaking here in terms of a likeness to a human servant, to whose master pertains everything done in regard to him. Nor should we suppose that God is harmed or benefited, if a man stands or falls. For it says in Jb (35:6): "If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him. If you are righteous, what do you give him." But in relation to men acts of righteousness look 539 to God’s glory: "That they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Mt 5:16). The fact that we fall by sinning is for men the occasion for blaspheming God: "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles" (Rom 2:24). Or the words It is before his own master that he stands or falls should be explained as regarding the judgment of his Master: "The one who judges me is the Lord" (1Cor 4:4). 1096. Secondly, he shows that it pertains to God to judge a man, saying, And he will be upheld. As if to say: Even though someone now falls by sinning, it is possible that he will stand again. And this will certainly happen, if he has been predestined: "Will he not rise again from where he lies?" (Ps 41:8); "Rejoice not over me, O my enemy, when I fall, I shall rise (Mic 7:8). For this reason if we see someone obviously sinning, we should not despise him and rashly judge that he will never rise again; rather, we should presume that he will stand again, not considering the human condition but God’s power. Hence, when he says: For God is able to make him stand, we should presume that He will make him stand again on account of His goodness: "The Spirit entered into me and set me upon my feet" (Ez 3:24), just as Paul said earlier: "And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (11:23). 1097. Then when he says, one man esteems, he exemplifies what he had said. First, he proposes that human opinions vary, saying: I say that he stands or falls before his own master, because one man esteems one day as better than another, i.e., he judges between one day and another, so that he abstains on one day and not on another. This seems to refer to those weak in faith, who suppose that the practices of the Law must still 540 be observed. For it says in Lev (23:27): "on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; and you shall afflict yourselves on this day." And in Jdt (8:6) it is stated that Judith fasted all the days of her life, except on Sabbaths, new moons and feasts of the house of Israel. Another man esteems all days alike as far as observing the practices of the Law were concerned, because these had now ceased. Hence this seems to refer to the perfect in faith: "Bless his name from day to day" (Ps 96:2). This can also refer to cases of abstaining performed to control sensual desires. Some abstain in this manner every day; for example, those who always abstain from meat or wine or fast, although some abstain on certain days and not on others: "For everything there is a season" (Ec 3:1). 1098. Secondly, he shows that all these things can pertain to the glory of God, saying: Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind, i.e., be left to his own judgment: "God made man from the beginning and left him in the hands of his own counsel" (Sir 15:14). But this seems to apply to things that are not of themselves evil. In things that are of themselves evil, however, man must not be left to follow his own mind. But that a person discriminates between days seems to be evil of itself according to the first explanation. For it says in Gal (4:10): "You observe days and months and seasons and years! I fear that I have labored over you in vain." And he is speaking there about those who claimed that days must be observed according to the ceremonies of the Law. The answer is that the Apostle is speaking here in regard to that time in which it was lawful for Jews converted to the faith to observe the practices of the Law. But in 541 regard to the second explanation it seems to be illicit for him to say: "Another man esteems all days alike." For there are some days on which it is unlawful to fast. For Augustine says in a letter to Casulanus: "Whoever things that a fast should be decreed on the Lord’s day would not be a small scandal to the Church, and rightfully so. For on those days about which the Church or Sacred Scripture has decreed nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the decrees of the major authorities must be considered the Law. And in the Decrees it is written: If on account of a public penance received from a priest a presbyter were to fast without any other need on the Lard’s day, let him be anathema." But one should understand that the Apostle is speaking here about those abstinences that can be licitly undertaken on any day without clashing with the common custom, or with the customs established by those in authority [a maioribus]. 1099. Then when he says, he who observes, he proves his proposition, namely, that each one stands or falls before his own master. And he does this in three ways. First, he proves it by appealing to the act of believers; secondly, by their intention [v. 7; n. 1101]; thirdly, by their condition [v. 8; n. 1103]. 1100. First, therefore, he proves how each of the faithful stands or falls before his mater, because in everything he does according to his conscience, he gives thanks to God. Hence he says: He who observes the day by abstaining one day and refraining from it on another day, observes it in honor of the Lord, i.e., he discriminates between foods out of reverence for God, just as we ourselves distinguish between the vigils of feasts when we 542 fast, and the feast days when we break the fast out of reverence for God: "Why is any day better than another and light better than light" (Sir 33:7). Then he speaks with respect to those who esteem all days alike,. Some of these ceased from fasting every day, as Mt (9:14) says that Christ’s disciples did not fast. Hence he says: He also who eats, namely, every day, eats in honor of the Lord, i.e., to the glory of God; which is proved by the fact that he gives thanks to God, namely, for the food he eats: "Some enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving" (I Tim 4:3); "The poor shall eat and be filled" (Ps 22:26). Finally in regard to those who look on days in such a way that they abstain every day, he says: He who abstains every day abstains in honor of the Lord. This is clear, because he gives thanks to God, Who gave him the will and virtue to abstain: "Give thanks in all circumstances" (I Th 5:18). But what the Apostle says here about those who abstain every day or cease abstaining should be understood with respect to that time when this was not contrary to the decrees of major authorities or to the common customs of the people of God. 1101. Then when he says, None of us lives to himself, he proves the same thing from the intention of believers. First, he rejects an inordinate intention, saying: I am correct in saying that everyone stands or falls before his master, for none of us lives to himself in his natural or in his supernatural life, about which it says in Heb (2:4): "My just man lives by faith." To himself, i.e., for himself, because that would be to enjoy himself: "Not seeking what is useful for me" (I Cor 10:33); "Not to us, O Lord, not to us give the glory" (Ps 114:9); to himself, i.e., according to his own rule, as those who say: "Let our might be our law of 543 right" (Wis 2:11); to himself, i.e., according to his own judgment: "I do not even judge myself" (I Cor 4:3). And none of us dies to himself, namely, a bodily death or a spiritual death by sinning, or even a spiritual death where9in one dies to his vices, as in baptism, as it says above (6:7): "He who has died is freed from sin." For to himself, i.e., to his own judgment or for himself or by his example: "The death he died he died to sin once for all " (Rom 6:10); and a few verses later: "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin. 1102. Secondly, he describes the right intention of believers, saying: If we live with our bodily life, we live to the Lord, i.e., to the glory of the Lord; and if we die a bodily death, we die to the Lord, i.e., to the honor of the Lord: "Christ will be magnified in my body whether through death or through life" (Phil 1:20). 1103. Then when he says, so then, he clarifies his proposition by considering the condition of believers. First he concludes from the foregoing the condition of the faithful, namely, that they are not their own but someone else’s. For those who are their own are free men; they live to themselves and die to themselves. Therefore, because it has been stated that the faithful do not live or die to themselves but to the Lord, he concludes: so then, whether live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s, servants, as it were, of Him Who has power over life and death: "You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men" (I Cor 7:23); "You were bought with a great price" (I Cor 6:20); "We are yours, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse!" (I Chr 12:18). 544 1104. Secondly, he assigns the cause of this condition, saying: For to this end Christ died and lived again, i.e., by His death and resurrection He obtained the right to be Lord of the living, because He rose to begin a new and perpetual life, and of the dead, because by dying He destroyed our death: "He died for all that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and arose (2 Cor 5:15). Thus, therefore, by all the foregoing the Apostle has proved that each one stands or falls before his master, namely, by the fact that believers give thanks to God and that they live and die to the Lord and that in life and in death we are the Lord’s. 1105. Then when he says, Why do you, he presents the third reason, which is based on the future judgment. In regard to this he does three things: first, he suggests that a judgment at present is unnecessary, saying: Why do you pass judgment, i.e., of what use or need is your judgment, on your brother, rashly judging hidden matters not committed to your judgment? Or you, who are judged, why do you despise your brother, regarding as nothing the fact that you are judged by him? "Why does each one despise his brother?" (Mic 2:10). 1106. Secondly, he foretells the future judgment of Christ: As if to say: I am correct in stating why you pass judgment, because you should not fear that anyone will remain unjudged. For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ. The tribunal of Christ is so called on account of His judiciary power, as it says in Mt (25:20): "When the Son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the glorious throne." 545 He says that we shall all stand, as if to be judged, both good and evil in regard to reward or punishment: "We must all appear before the judgment sat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body" (2 Cor 5:10). But as to the proceedings not all will stand to be judged, but some will sit as judges: "You will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt 19:28). 1107. Thirdly, when he says, for it is written, he proves what he had said: first, he appeals to an authority; secondly, he draws the conclusion [v. 12; n. 1112]. 1108. First, therefore, he says: I have stated that all of us will stand before the tribunal of Christ. This is clear from the testimony of Sacred Scripture: for it is written (Is 45:23): As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. Our text has this: "I have sword by myself that to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear." 1109. Three things are stated in these words: first, the oath sometimes used by God to show that what is said is as solid as the unchangeableness of God’s plan and not changeable as things foretold according to lower causes, as prophecies that threaten. Hence it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind." But men, as the Apostle says in Heb (6:16), "swear by a greater than themselves." But because God has none greater than Himself on which the strength of His truth depends, He swears by Himself. 546 Furthermore, God is life itself and the source of life, as it says in Dt (30:20): "He is your life and the length of your days"; "With thee is the fountain of life" (Ps 36:9). Therefore, the formula of the Lord’s oath is, as I live. As if to say: I swear by the life I uniquely live. 1110. Secondly, the coming subjection of the creature to God is foretold, when it is said: every knee shall bow to me, i.e., to Christ. In this is designated the complete subjection of the rational creature to Christ. For men are wont to signify subjection by bending the knee. Hence it says in Phil (2:11): "At the name of Jesus every knee should bend in heaven and on the earth and under the earth. 1111. Thirdly, he foretells the confession of faith by which all will confess the glory of Christ. Hence he continues: and every tongue shall give praise to God, i.e., will confess that Christ is God, as it says in Phil (2:11): "Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Every tongue can be understood as the expression of the knowledge of men or of angels, as it says in I Cor (13:1): "If I speak in the tongue of men and of angels." This is fulfilled now in this life, not as to each man but as to the classes of each man. From each class of men some are not subjected to Christ and confess Him by faith, but in the future judgment all and each will be subjected to Him: the good voluntarily and the evil unwillingly. Hence, it says in Heb (2:8): "Now in subjecting everything to him, he left nothing outside his control." 1112. Then when he says, so each of us, he draws the conclusion from the foregoing. 547 First, the conclusion intended from what he had just said, saying: Therefore, from the fact that every knee will bend before Christ, each of us shall give an account of himself before God, i.e., before the tribunal of Christ: "On the day of judgment every man shall render an account for every careless word he uttered" (Mt 12:36); "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants" (Mt 18:23). 1113. But it seems that not everyone will give an account of himself, but one for someone else: "Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account" (Heb 13:17). The answer is that in the very fact that prelates will render an account for others, they will render an account for their own actions, which they6 should have performed for their subjects. For if they have done what their duties demanded, they will not be held accountable, if their subjects perished. But they would be held accountable, if they neglected to do what their office required. Hence it says in Ez (3:18ff): "If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I shall require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness, he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life." 1114. Secondly, he draws the conclusion chiefly intended from the entire preceding part, saying: Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, i.e., with a rash judgment, which is included in the reason given above: "Do not pronounce judgment before the time" (I Cor 4:5).
Continue studying Romans 14:1 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Romans 14:1 initiates a profound discourse on Christian unity, liberty, and conscience within the diverse early church in Rome. Paul instructs believers to graciously welcome those who are "weak in the faith"—referring to individuals whose consciences are more scrupulous regarding non-essential practices—without engaging in contentious debates that might lead to doubt or division. This verse sets the foundational principle for fostering a harmonious community where mutual acceptance and love supersede personal convictions on disputable matters, ensuring that the body of Christ remains united despite varying levels of spiritual maturity or understanding concerning Christian freedoms.
CONTEXT
Literary Context: Romans 14 begins a significant section (chapters 14-15) where Paul shifts from theological exposition and ethical exhortation to practical application concerning internal church relationships. Having established the foundational doctrines of justification by faith and sanctification, he now addresses specific points of contention within the Roman Christian community. This chapter immediately follows a call to living sacrifices and the transformation of the mind in Romans 12, and a discussion of love fulfilling the law in Romans 13. The issue at hand is not fundamental doctrine, but rather differing practices and convictions regarding matters like dietary laws (eating meat vs. vegetables) and the observance of special days, which were causing judgment and division among believers. Romans 14:1 serves as the thesis statement for Paul's subsequent arguments, emphasizing the imperative of acceptance over disputation.
Historical & Cultural Context: The church in Rome was a complex tapestry of Jewish and Gentile believers. Jewish Christians, many of whom had grown up under the Mosaic Law, often struggled to fully embrace the freedom from dietary restrictions and ceremonial observances that the gospel offered. They might still abstain from certain foods or observe specific days, not out of legalism, but out of deeply ingrained cultural and religious habits or a sensitive conscience. Gentile Christians, on the other hand, having come from pagan backgrounds, might have readily embraced their liberty in Christ, viewing all foods as clean and all days as equal. This created tension, as the "stronger" (those who understood their freedom) might despise the "weaker" (those with scruples), and the "weaker" might judge the "stronger." The Roman context also involved a diverse marketplace where meat might have been sacrificed to idols, further complicating dietary choices for some. Paul's instruction is therefore highly practical, addressing real-world challenges in a multicultural, multi-background Christian community.
Key Themes: This verse introduces and contributes to several pivotal themes explored throughout Romans 14-15 and the broader Pauline corpus. Foremost among them is Christian Liberty and Conscience, highlighting that while believers are free in Christ, this freedom must be exercised with consideration for others, especially those with a weaker conscience. It also emphasizes Mutual Acceptance and Edification, urging believers to receive one another as Christ has received them, focusing on building up rather than tearing down (Romans 15:7). The theme of Unity in Diversity is central, demonstrating that true Christian unity is not uniformity in all practices, but a shared faith in Christ that allows for differences in non-essential matters. Finally, the passage underscores the principle of Love as the Guiding Principle in all interactions, prioritizing the spiritual well-being of a fellow believer over one's own rights or preferences, as seen in Romans 14:15.
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Paul employs several literary devices in this concise verse to convey his urgent message. The verse begins with an Imperative ("receive ye"), a direct command that underscores the non-negotiable nature of this instruction for the Roman believers. This command is immediately followed by a Contrast or Antithesis ("but not to doubtful disputations"), which clarifies the manner of reception: welcome them, but not for the purpose of contentious debate. This creates a clear boundary for appropriate interaction. Furthermore, the phrase "weak in the faith" functions as a form of Metonymy or Synecdoche, where "faith" stands for the believer's understanding and application of Christian truth, specifically concerning matters of liberty. The "weakness" is not in their core belief in Christ, but in their confidence or conviction regarding disputable practices. The entire verse serves as a Thesis Statement for the subsequent discussion in Romans 14-15, setting the tone and guiding principle for navigating internal church differences.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Romans 14:1 lays the groundwork for a profound theology of Christian community, emphasizing that the strength of the church is found not in uniformity of practice, but in the unity of the Spirit expressed through mutual love and acceptance. This verse teaches that Christian liberty, while real and precious, is not an absolute right to be exercised without regard for others. Instead, it must be tempered by love, empathy, and a commitment to building up, not tearing down, the body of Christ. The "weak" are not to be despised for their scruples, nor are the "strong" to be judged for their freedom. Rather, both are called to humble themselves, prioritize the spiritual well-being of their fellow believers, and recognize that their ultimate accountability is to the Lord, not to one another's opinions on disputable matters. This framework fosters an environment where diverse expressions of faith can coexist harmoniously, centered on the core truths of the gospel.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
The timeless wisdom of Romans 14:1 continues to be profoundly relevant for the church in every generation. In a world increasingly polarized, and in Christian communities often divided over secondary issues, Paul's instruction calls us back to the heart of gospel-centered fellowship. It challenges us to examine our own attitudes towards those who hold differing convictions on non-essential matters, whether these relate to worship styles, political engagement, entertainment choices, or even personal dietary habits. The command to "receive ye" compels us to extend genuine, non-judgmental hospitality and acceptance, recognizing that spiritual maturity manifests not in rigid adherence to our own preferences, but in humble love for others. We are cautioned against turning our personal liberties into stumbling blocks or occasions for contentious debates, which inevitably lead to division rather than edification. True spiritual strength is demonstrated not by asserting our rights, but by sacrificing them for the sake of a weaker brother or sister, fostering an environment where all feel valued, loved, and free to grow in their own conscience before God. This requires discerning what is truly essential to the faith and what falls into the category of "disputable matters," always prioritizing the unity of the Spirit and the building up of the body of Christ.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
What does "weak in the faith" mean in this context?
Answer: In Romans 14:1, "weak in the faith" does not refer to a lack of saving faith or a deficiency in one's commitment to Christ. Instead, it describes a believer whose conscience is particularly sensitive or scrupulous regarding non-essential practices, such as dietary laws or the observance of specific days. These individuals might feel bound by certain rules or traditions, even though Christ has granted freedom from them. Their "weakness" is in their understanding or confidence in the full extent of Christian liberty, making them prone to doubt or feel condemned if they deviate from their personal convictions. Paul's concern is that "stronger" believers (those who fully grasp their freedom) should not cause these "weaker" ones to violate their conscience or stumble in their faith by pressuring them to adopt practices they are not yet persuaded of. This concept is further explored in Romans 14:2-3 and Romans 14:23.
What are "doubtful disputations" and why should we avoid them?
Answer: "Doubtful disputations" refers to contentious arguments, debates, or critical judgments over matters of personal conviction that are not central to the gospel. The Greek phrase suggests "disputations of reasonings" or "judgments of thoughts." Paul advises against engaging in such discussions because they tend to lead to division, condemnation, and doubt rather than edification and unity. When we receive a fellow believer, it should be with genuine acceptance and hospitality, not with the immediate intention of challenging their conscience or forcing them to adopt our viewpoint on non-essential issues. The goal is to build up the body of Christ in love, recognizing that each believer stands or falls before their own Lord, as articulated in Romans 14:4. Avoiding these disputations preserves peace and allows for spiritual growth at an individual's own pace, guided by their conscience and the Holy Spirit.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Romans 14:1, though a practical instruction for church life, finds its ultimate fulfillment and deepest meaning in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ Himself perfectly embodied the principle of receiving the weak without engaging in doubtful disputations. He consistently welcomed outcasts, sinners, and those considered "unclean" by the religious elite, extending grace and acceptance without first demanding their conformity to human traditions (Luke 15:1-2). Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, demonstrating that the heart of God's law is love for God and neighbor, which transcends rigid adherence to external regulations (Matthew 5:17). His ministry was characterized by compassion for the spiritually "feeble" and a patient, gentle approach to those whose understanding was incomplete (Matthew 12:20). Moreover, Christ's ultimate act of "receiving" us was His sacrifice on the cross, where He accepted us in our weakness and sin, making us righteous before God without first requiring us to clean ourselves up or perfectly understand all theological nuances (Romans 5:8). Therefore, when Paul commands believers to "receive ye" the weak in faith, he is calling them to imitate the very character and redemptive work of Christ, who perfectly modeled unconditional love, gracious acceptance, and a focus on essential truth over contentious trivialities. Our unity in Christ is a reflection of His own unifying work, where He broke down walls of division to create one new humanity (Ephesians 2:14-16).