Comentários bíblicos

Romans 14 is designed to settle some difficult and delicate questions that could not but arise between the Jews and Gentiles respecting food and the observance of particular days, rites, etc. The "occasions" of these questions were these: The converts to Christianity were from both Jews and Gentiles. There were many Jews in Rome; and it is probable that no small part of the church was composed of them. The New Testament everywhere shows that they were disposed to bind the Gentile converts to their own customs, and to insist on the observance of the unique laws of Moses; see Acts 15:1-2, etc.; Galatians 2:3-4. The "subjects" on which questions of this kind would be agitated were, circumcision, days of fasting, the distinction of meats, etc. A part of these only are discussed in this chapter. The views of the apostle in regard to "circumcision" had been stated in Romans 3-4. In this chapter he notices the disputes which would be likely to arise on the following subjects;

(1) The use of "meat," evidently referring to the question whether it was lawful to eat the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; Romans 14:2.

(2) the distinctions and observances of the days of Jewish fastings, etc., Romans 14:5-6.

(3) the laws observed by the Jews in relation to animals as "clean" or "unclean;" Romans 14:14.

It is probable that these are mere "specimens" adduced by the apostle to settle "principles" of conduct in regard to the Gentiles, and to show to each party how they ought to act in "all" such questions.

The apostle's design here is to allay all these contentions by producing peace, kindness, charity. This he does by the following considerations, namely:

(1) That we have no right to "judge" another man in this case, for he is the servant of God; Romans 14:3-4.

(2) that whatever course is taken in these questions, it is done conscientiously, and with a desire to glorify God. In such a case there should be kindness and charity; Romans 14:6, etc.

(3) that we must stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and give an account "there;" and that "we," therefore, should not usurp the function of judging; Romans 14:10-13.

(4) that there is really nothing unclean of itself; Romans 14:14.

(5) that religion consisted in more important matters than "such" questions; Romans 14:17-18.

(6) that we should follow after the things of peace, etc.; Romans 14:19-23.

The principles of this chapter are applicable to all "similar" cases of difference of opinion about rites and ceremonies, and unessential doctrines of religion; and we shall see that if they were honestly applied, they would settle no small part of the controversies in the religious world.

Him that is weak - The design here is to induce Christians to receive to their fellowship those who had scruples about the propriety of certain things, or that might have special prejudices and feelings as the result of education or former habits of belief. The apostle, therefore, begins by admitting that such an one may be "weak," that is, not fully established, or not with so clear and enlarged views about Christian liberty others might have.

In the faith - In believing. This does not refer to "saving faith" in Christ, for he might have that; but to belief in regard "to the things which the apostle specifies," or which would come into controversy. Young converts have often a special delicacy or sensitiveness about the lawfulness of many things in relation to which older Christians may be more fully established. To produce peace, there must be kindness, tenderness, and faithful teaching; not denunciation, or harshness, on one side or the other.

Receive ye - Admit to your society or fellowship: receive him kindly, not meet with a cold and harsh repulse; compare Romans 15:7.

Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, "by the natural reaction of such a course," confirming him in his doubts. Or, "do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc." (Stuart.) The "leading" idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to overcome his scruples. In questions which now occur about modes of "dress," about "measures" and means of promoting revivals, and about rites and ceremonies, this is by far the wisest course, if we wish to overcome the scruples of a brother, and to induce him to think as we do. Greek, "Unto doubts or fluctuations of opinions or reasonings." Various senses have been given to the words, but the above probably expresses the true meaning.

For one believeth - This was the case with the Gentiles in general, who had none of the scruples of the Jew about the propriety of eating certain kinds of meat. Many of the converts who had been Jews might also have had the same view as the apostle Paul evidently had while the great mass of Jewish converts might have cherished these scruples.

May eat all things - That is, he will not be restrained by any scruples about the lawfulness of certain meats, etc.

Another who is weak - There is reference here, doubt less, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was "weak," that is, not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question with the Jew doubtless was, whether it was lawful to eat the meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices a part only of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshippers, or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his Law; Exodus 34:15. This question the apostle discussed and settled in 1 Corinthians 10:20-32, which see. In that place the general principle is laid down, that it was lawful to partake of that meat as a man would of any other, "unless it was expressly pointed out to him as having been sacrificed to idols, and unless his partaking of it would be considered as countenancing the idolators in their worship;" Romans 14:28. But with this principle many Jewish converts might not have been acquainted; or what is quite as probable, they might not have been disposed to admit its propriety.

Eateth herbs - Herbs or "vegetables" only; does not partake of meat at all, for "fear" of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even "ignorantly," they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on the subject might have arisen in part from the fact that sins of "ignorance" among them subjected them to certain penalties; Leviticus 4:2-3, etc.; Leviticus 5:15; Numbers 15:24, Numbers 15:27-29. Josephus says (Life, Section 3) that in his time there were certain priests of his acquaintance who "supported themselves with figs and nuts." These priests had been sent to Rome to be tried on some charge before Caesar: and it is probable that they abstained from meat because it might have been offered to idols. It is expressly declared of Daniel when in Babylon, that he lived on pulse and water, that he might not "defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank;" Daniel 1:8-16.

Let not him that eateth - That is, he who has no scruples about eating "meat," etc., who is not restrained by the Law of the Jews respecting the Clean and unclean, or by the fact that meat "may" have been offered to idols.

Despise him - Hold him in contempt, as being unnecessarily scrupulous, etc. The word "despise" here is happily chosen. The Gentile would be very likely to "despise" the Jew as being restrained by foolish scruples and mere distinctions in matters of no importance.

Him that eateth not - Him that is restrained by scruples of conscience, and that will eat only "vegetables;" Romans 14:2. The reference here is doubtless to the "Jew.

Judge him - To "judge" here has the force of "condemn." This word also is very happily chosen. The Jew would not be so likely to "despise" the Gentile for what he did as to "judge" or condemn him. He would deem it too serious a matter for contempt. He would regard it as a violation of the Law of God, and would be likely to assume the right of judging his brother, and pronouncing him guilty. The apostle here has happily met the whole case in all disputes about rites, and dress, and scruples in religious matters that are not essential. One party commonly "despises" the other as being needlessly and foolishly scrupulous; and the other makes it a matter of "conscience," too serious for ridicule and contempt; and a matter, to neglect which, is, in their view, deserving of condemnation. The true direction to be given in such a case is, "to the one party," not to treat the scruples of the other with derision and contempt, but with tenderness and indulgence. Let him have his way in it. If he can be "reasoned" out of it, it is well; but to attempt to "laugh" him out of it is unkind, and will tend only to confirm him in his views. And "to the other party," it should be said they have no "right" to judge or condemn another. If I cannot see that the Bible requires a particular cut to my coat, or makes it my duty to observe a particular festival, he has no right to judge me harshly, or to suppose that I am to be rejected and condemned for it. He has a right to "his" opinion; and while I do not "despise" him, he has no right to "judge" me. This is the foundation of true charity; and if this simple rule had been followed, how much strife, and even bloodshed, would it have spared in the church. Most of the contentions among Christians have been on subjects of this nature. Agreeing substantially in the "doctrines" of the Bible, they have been split up into sects on subjects just about as important as those which the apostle discusses in this chapter.

For God hath received him - This is the same word that is translated "receive" in Romans 14:1. It means here that God hath received him kindly; or has acknowledged him as his own friend; or he is a true Christian. These scruples, on the one side or the other, are not inconsistent with true piety; and as "God" has acknowledged him as "his," notwithstanding his opinions on these subjects, so "we" also ought to recognise him as a Christian brother. Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them.

Who art thou ... - That is, who gave you this right to sit in judgment on others; compare Luke 12:14. There is reference here particularly to the "Jew," who on account of his ancient privileges, and because he had the Law of God, would assume the prerogative of "judging" in the case, and insist on conformity to his own views; see Acts 15. The doctrine of this Epistle is uniformly, that the Jew had no such privilege, but that in regard to salvation he was on the same level with the Gentile.

That judgest ... - compare James 4:12. This is a principle of common sense and common propriety. It is not ours to sit in judgment on the servant of another man. He has the control over him; and if "he" chooses to forbid his doing anything, or to allow him to do anything, it pertains to "his" affairs not ours. To attempt to control him, is to intermeddle improperly, and to become a "busy-body in other men's matters;" 1 Peter 4:15. Thus, Christians are the servants of God; they are answerable to him; and "we" have no right to usurp "his" place, and to act as if we were "lords over his heritage;" 1 Peter 5:3.

To his own master - The servant is responsible to his master only. So it is with the Christian in regard to God.

He standeth or falleth - He shall be approved or condemned. If his conduct is such as pleases his master, he shall be approved; if not, he will be condemned.

Yea, he shall be holden up - This is spoken of the Christian only. In relation to the servant, he might stand or fall; he might be approved or condemned. The master had no power to keep him in a way of obedience, except by the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment. But it was not so in regard to the Christian. The Jew who was disposed to "condemn" the Gentile might say, that he admitted the general principle which the apostle had stated about the servant; that it was just what he was saying, that he might "fall," and be condemned. But no, says the apostle, this does not follow, in relation to the Christian He shall not fall. God has power to make him stand; to hold him; to keep him from error, and from condemnation, and "he shall be holden up." He shall not be suffered to fall into condemnation, for it is the "purpose" of God to keep him; compare Psalm 1:5. This is one of the incidental but striking evidences that the apostle believed that all Christians should be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

Is able - See John 10:29. Though a master cannot exert such an influence over a servant as to "secure" his obedience, yet "God" has this power over his people, and will preserve them in a path of obedience.

One man esteemeth - Greek "judgeth" κρίνει krinei. The word is here properly translated "esteemeth;" compare Acts 13:46; Acts 16:15. The word originally has the idea of "separating," and then "discerning," in the act of judging. The expression means that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the "Jews" uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths as especially sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity.

Another "esteemeth - That is, the "Gentile" Christian. Not having been brought up amidst the Jewish customs, and not having imbibed their opinions and prejudices, they would not regard these days as having any special sacredness. The appointment of those days had a special reference "to the Jews." They were designed to keep them as a separate people, and to prepare the nation for the "reality," of which their rites were but the shadow. When the Messiah came, the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other special festivals of the Jews, of course vanished, and it is perfectly clear that the apostles never intended to inculcate their observance on the Gentile converts. See this subject discussed in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians.

Every day alike - The word "alike" is not in the original, and it may convey an idea which the apostle did not design. The passage means that he regards "every day" as consecrated to the Lord; Romans 14:6. The question has been agitated whether the apostle intends in this to include the Christian Sabbath. Does he mean to say that it is a matter of "indifference" whether this day be observed, or whether it be devoted to ordinary business or amusements? This is a very important question in regard to the Lord's day. That the apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations.

(1) the discussion had reference only to the special customs of the "Jews," to the rites and practices which "they" would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians as "Christians." The inquiry pertained to "meats," and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, etc.; and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord's day is introduced here than that he advances principles respecting "baptism" and "the Lord's supper."

(2) the "Lord's day" was doubtless observed by "all" Christians, whether converted from Jews or Gentiles; see 1 Corinthians 16:2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10; compare the notes at John 20:26. The propriety of observing "that day" does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, and days of festivals and fasts.

(3) it is expressly said that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honor God; Romans 14:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honor, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by "neglecting" his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to "honor the Lord Jesus," and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead "this passage" as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it "just as it is," that is, let "him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ." Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

Let every man ... - That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were "morally" wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the "Jew" esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word "be fully persuaded" denotes the highest conviction, not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination; see Romans 4:21; 2 Timothy 4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them.

He that regardeth - Greek, "Thinketh of;" or pays attention to; that is, he that "observes" it as a festival, or as holy time.

The day - Any of the days under discussion; the days that the Jews kept as religious occasions.

Regardeth unto the Lord - Regards it as "holy," or as set apart to the service of God. He believes that he is "required" by God to keep it, that is, that the laws of Moses in regard to such days are binding on him.

He that regardeth not the day - Or who does not observe such distinctions of days as are demanded in the laws of Moses.

To the Lord ... - That is, he does not believe that God "requires" such an observance.

He that eateth - The Gentile Christian, who freely eats all kinds of meat; Romans 14:2.

Eateth to the Lord - Because he believes that God does not forbid it; and because he desires, in doing it, to glorify God; 1 Corinthians 10:31. "To eat to the Lord," in this case, is to do it believing that such is his will. In all other cases, it is to do it feeling that we receive our food from him; rendering thanks for his goodness, and desirous of being strengthened that we may do his commands.

He giveth God thanks - This is an incidental proof that it is our duty to give God thanks at our meals for our food. It shows that it was the "practice" of the early Christians, and has the commendation of the apostle. It was, also, uniformly done by the Jews, and by the Lord Jesus; Matthew 14:19; Matthew 26:26; Mark 6:41; Mark 14:22; Luke 9:16; Luke 24:30.

To the Lord he eateth not - He abstains from eating because he believes that God requires him to do it, and with a desire to obey and honor him.

And giveth God thanks - That is, the Jew thanked God for the Law, and for the favor he had bestowed on him in giving him more light than he had the Gentiles. For this privilege they valued themselves highly, and this feeling, no doubt, the converted Jews would continue to retain; deeming themselves as specially favored in having a "special" acquaintance with the Law of God.

For none of us ... - Whether by nature Jews or Gentiles. In the great principles of religion we are now united. Where there was evidence of a sincere desire to do the will of God there should be charitable feeling, through there was difference of opinion and judgment in many smaller matters. The meaning of the expression is, that no Christian lives to gratify his own inclinations or appetites. He makes it his great aim to do the will of God; to subordinate all his desires to his Law and gospel; and though, therefore, one should eat flesh, and should feel at liberty to devote to common employments time that another deemed sacred, yet it should not be uncharitably set down as a desire to indulge his sensual appetites, or to become rich. Another motive "may be" supposed, and where there is not positive "proof" to the contrary, "should be" supposed; see the beautiful illustration of this in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. To live "to ourselves" is to make it the great object to become rich or honored, or to indulge in the ease, comfort, and pleasures of life. These are the aim of all people but Christians; and in nothing else do Christians more differ from the world than in this; see 1 Peter 4:1-2; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20; Matthew 10:38; Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; Mark 10:21; Luke 9:23. On no point does it become Christians more to examine themselves than on this. To "live to ourselves" is an evidence that we are strangers to piety. And if it be the great motive of our lives to live at ease Amos 6:1 - to gratify the flesh, to gain property, or to be distinguished in places of fashion and amusement - it is evidence that we know nothing of the power of that gospel which teaches us "to deny ourselves, and take up our cross daily.

No man - No "one," the same Greek word οὐδείς oudeis which is used in the former part of the verse. The word is used only in reference to "Christians" here, and makes no affirmation about other people.

Dieth to himself - See Romans 14:8. This expression is used to denote the "universality" or the "totality" with which Christians belong to God. Every thing is done and suffered with reference to his will. In our conduct, in our property, in our trials, in our death, we are "his;" to be disposed of as he shall please. In the grave, and in the future world, we shall be equally his. As this is the great principle on which "all" Christians live and act, we should be kind and tender toward them, though in some respects they differ from us.