聖經註釋書

使徒在前一章指導了我們在屬世之事上彼此相待的行事為人，又為我們身為國家一分子的緣故，定下了當遵守的正義、和平與秩序的神聖法則。如今在本章及下一章的一部分，他照樣指導我們在屬聖之事上彼此相待的態度；這些事更直接關乎良心與信仰，是我們作為教會的一分子所當遵守的。特別是，他給予了一些規則，教導我們當如何處理對那些無關緊要之事的不同看法；看來在羅馬基督徒中間——使徒正是寫信給他們——在處理這些事上確有些不妥之處，他在此便竭力加以糾正。然而這些規則是通用的，在教會中有持久的功用，為要保守他在前一章所極力強調的那份基督徒的愛——因為愛就成全了律法。誠然，再沒有甚麼比信徒之間的紛爭與分裂對基督徒群體更為致命、更具威脅了。宗教的生命與靈魂正是在這些創傷中消亡。如今在本章裏，我們得到了基列的乳香這奇妙的良藥；這位蒙福的使徒如同明醫開方。「我百姓的損傷為何不得痊癒」？豈不是因為他的指示沒有被遵行嗎？本章若被正確理解、善加運用、切實遵行，便能使萬事歸正，醫治我們眾人。

Romans 14 的用意，是要解決一些因食物並特定日子、禮儀等的遵守，在猶太人與外邦人之間不免產生的棘手而微妙的問題。這些問題的「起因」如下：歸信基督教的人既有猶太人，也有外邦人。羅馬有許多猶太人；教會中大概有相當一部分由他們組成。新約聖經處處顯示，他們傾向於把外邦歸信者捆在自己的習俗之下，堅持要人遵守摩西獨特的律法；見 Acts 15:1-2 等；Galatians 2:3-4。這類問題被爭論的「主題」是：割禮、禁食的日子、食物的區分等。本章只討論其中一部分。使徒關於「割禮」的見解已在 Romans 3-4 陳明。在本章，他處理可能因以下主題而起的爭論：

(1) 「肉食」的使用，顯然指祭過偶像的肉可否吃的問題 Romans 14:2。

(2) 猶太人禁食等日子的區分與遵守 Romans 14:5-6。

(3) 猶太人關於動物「潔淨」與「不潔淨」之分所遵守的規條 Romans 14:14。

這些大概只是使徒所舉的「實例」，用以確立對待外邦人行事的「原則」，並向雙方表明，在「這一切」問題上他們當如何行。

使徒在此的用意，是以平安、恩慈、愛心平息這一切爭執。他藉以下考量做到這一點：

(1) 在這類事上，我們無權「論斷」別人，因為他是神的僕人 Romans 14:3-4。

(2) 在這些問題上，人無論採取哪一種做法，都是本著良心、並存著榮耀神的意願而行的。在這種情形下，就當以恩慈與愛心相待 Romans 14:6 等。

(3) 我們都要站在基督的審判臺前，「在那裡」交賬；因此，「我們」不當僭奪審斷的職分 Romans 14:10-13。

(4) 其實沒有一樣東西本質上是不潔淨的 Romans 14:14。

(5) 信仰的要義乃在於比「這類」問題更重大的事 Romans 14:17-18。

(6) 我們應當追求和睦的事等 Romans 14:19-23。

本章的原則可應用於一切有關禮儀、典章以及宗教非基要教義之意見分歧的「類似」情形；我們將會看到，這些原則若被誠實地應用，足以解決宗教界爭論中不小的部分。

In things indifferent, Christians should not condemn each other, Romans 14:1. Particularly with respect to different kinds of food, Romans 14:2-4. And the observation of certain days, Romans 14:5, Romans 14:6. None of us should live unto himself, but unto Christ, who lived and died for us, Romans 14:7-9. We must not judge each other; for all judgment belongs to God, Romans 14:10-13. We should not do any thing by which a weak brother may be stumbled or grieved; lest we destroy him for whom Christ died, Romans 14:14-16. The kingdom of God does not consist in outward things, Romans 14:17, Romans 14:18. Christians should endeavor to cultivate peace and brotherly affection, and rather deny themselves of certain privileges than be the means of stumbling a weak brother, Romans 14:19-21. The necessity of doing all in the spirit of faith, Romans 14:22, Romans 14:23.

It seems very likely, from this and the following chapter, that there were considerable misunderstandings between the Jewish and Gentile Christians at Rome, relative to certain customs which were sacredly observed by the one and disregarded by the other. The principal subject of dispute was concerning meats and days. The converted Jew, retaining a veneration for the law of Moses, abstained from certain meats, and was observant of certain days; while the converted Gentile, understanding that the Christian religion laid him under no obligations to such ceremonial points, had no regard to either. It appears, farther, that mutual censures and uncharitable judgments prevailed among them, and that brotherly love and mutual forbearance did not generally prevail. The apostle, in this part of his epistle, exhorts that in such things, not essential to religion, and in which both parties, in their different way of thinking, might have an honest meaning, and serious regard to God, difference of sentiments might not hinder Christian fellowship and love; but that they would mutually forbear each other, make candid allowance, and especially not carry their Gospel liberty so far as to prejudice a weak brother, a Jewish Christian, against the Gospel itself, and tempt him to renounce Christianity. His rules and exhortations are still of great use, and happy would the Christian world be if they were more generally practised. See Dr. Taylor, who farther remarks, that it is probable St. Paul learned all these particulars from Aquila and Priscilla, who were lately come from Rome, Acts 18:2, Acts 18:3, and with whom the apostle was familiar for a considerable time. This is very likely, as there is no evidence that he had any other intercourse with the Church at Rome.

INTRODUCTION TO Romans 14

The apostle, having finished his exhortations to duties of a moral and civil kind, proceeds to the consideration of things indifferent, about eating some sorts of meats, and keeping days; to which he might be led by the last clause of the preceding chapter, lest that should be interpreted as referring to those who used their Christian liberty in eating every sort of food; in the use of which it was requisite to exercise that love which is the fulfilling of the law, he had so much pressed and recommended in the foregoing chapters. The church at Rome consisted both of Jews and Gentiles: and the former, though they believed in Christ, were not clear about the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and thought they ought still to observe the distinction of meats and days, which were made in it; the latter looked upon themselves under no manner of obligation to regard them; and even among thee Jews, some might have greater light and knowledge in these things than others, and used their Christian liberty, when others could not; and this occasioned great animosities and contentions among them; and some on account of these things were called strong, and others weak: and the chief view of the apostle in this chapter, is to give advice to each party how to behave one towards another; how the strong should behave to the weak, and the weak to the strong: and he begins with the strong, and in general exhorts them to a kind, tender, and affectionate regard to their weaker brethren, and not to perplex their minds with disputations about things to little profit, Romans 14:1, then a distribution of the members of this church into two parts is made, Romans 14:2, showing the reason of the above exhortations; the one sort being strong believers, the others weak, the one eating all things, the other herbs; when some advice is given to each, that the strong should not despise the weak, nor the weak judge the strong; for which reasons are given: and the first is taken from the common interest they both have in the affection of God, and in divine adoption, Romans 14:3, And another is taken from the relation which believers stand in to God, as servants; and therefore not to be judged and condemned, but to be left to their Lord and master, which is illustrated by a simile of such a relation among men, Romans 14:4, and then another instance of different sentiments about Jewish rites and ceremonies is given, Romans 14:5, respecting the observation of days, in which also the members of the church were divided, some observing them, and some not; and the apostle's advice is, that every man should act as he was persuaded in his own mind, and not be uneasy with another: the reason for which he gives, Romans 14:6, because the end proposed by the one, and the other, is the honour and glory of God, and which is the same in the man that eats, or does not eat meat, since both give thanks to God. And this is further confirmed from the general end of the Christian's life and death likewise, which is not to himself, but to the Lord, Romans 14:7, from whence it is concluded, that they are the Lord's in life and death, and all their actions are devoted to him; who by dying, rising, and living again, appears to be the Lord of quick and dead, and will judge both, Romans 14:9, and therefore to his judgment things should be left, and one should not condemn or despise another, since all must stand at his bar, Romans 14:10, which is proved Romans 14:11, from a passage in Isaiah 45:23, from all which it is concluded, Romans 14:12, that an account must be given by everyone to God, at the general judgment; wherefore it is right and best, not to judge and condemn one another, but to judge this to be the most reasonable and agreeable to Christian charity, that care be taken not to offend, or cause a brother to stumble, Romans 14:13, and whereas it might be objected, that nothing was impure in itself, and therefore might be lawfully eaten, which the apostle allows, and as for himself, was fully persuaded of, yet it was impure to them who thought it so, Romans 14:14, and therefore should not eat; nor should others, when it gave offence to such persons; and which is dissuaded from, because to eat to the grief of the brethren, is contrary to Christian charity; and because it destroys the peace of such persons, and they are such whom Christ has died for, Romans 14:15, besides, hereby reproach might be brought upon them, the Gospel they professed, and the truth of Christian liberty they used, Romans 14:16, and moreover, the kingdom of God did not lie in the use of these things, but in spiritual ones, Romans 14:17, and which should be chiefly regarded, since the service of God in them, is what is grateful to him, and approved by all good men, Romans 14:18, wherefore the things which make for peace and edification should be followed after, things much preferable to meats and drinks, Romans 14:19, for the sake of which the peace of a brother, which is the work of God, should not be destroyed, Romans 14:20, for though all things are pure in themselves, and lawful to be eaten, yet it is an evil to eat them to the offence of another, and for another to eat them against his conscience, which he may be drawn into by the example of others; wherefore it is best to abstain from eating flesh or drinking wine, and everything else that is stumbling and offensive to a weak brother, Romans 14:21, and whereas the strong brother might object and say, I have faith in this matter, I believe it is lawful for me to eat anything, and why should I not? the apostle answers, by granting that he had faith, but then he observes, he ought to keep it to himself, and not disturb his weak brother, by putting it into practice openly; but should keep it to himself, it being his happiness not to condemn himself by using his liberty with offence, Romans 14:22, and then some advice is given to the weak brother, not to eat with a doubting conscience, Romans 14:23, because in so doing, he would be self-condemned, and because it would not be of faith, and therefore sinful.

XIV.

There appears to have been a party in the Church at Rome which had adopted certain ascetic practices over and above the common rule of Christianity. We gather that they abstained altogether from flesh and wine, and that they (or possibly some other persons in the same church) also made a point of observing certain days with peculiar sanctity. When we ask what was the origin and affinities of this party, the answer is not quite obvious. It can hardly have been a branch of the Judaising party, such as it was met with in the Churches of Galatia, for then more stress would have been laid on the duty of circumcision, and their antagonism to St. Paul would probably have been more pronounced. Besides, if they had taken their stand upon the law of Moses, that law only forbade certain meats and drinks, and not all flesh and wine. A more plausible theory would be that which connects the party in question with the scruples mentioned in 1Corinthians 8:4-13. The avoidance of meat offered to idols might easily be extended so as to cover all meat whatsoever. It would be difficult to ensure the complete absence of such pollution as was involved in the idol sacrifices, and a scrupulous person may have thought that the only safe measure was a total abstinence from animal food. And in like manner, as regards wine, which was liable to be used in heathen libations. The objection to this view is, that there is no allusion to the idol sacrifices, and as the Apostle enters into the subject so minutely in 1 Corinthians 8, he might naturally be expected not to pass it over without some allusion here. It seems best, therefore, to regard the practices referred to in the Roman Church as a natural development of ascetic or purist elements within the Church itself. These would be supplied by those who had come over to Christianity from the sect of the Essenes, with the tenets of which sect the allusions in this chapter would quite sufficiently agree. It would appear to have been a further development of the same doctrines which, at a later date, vexed the Church at Colossæ. At Rome, the tendency had hitherto been slight and unaggressive, and the Apostle therefore deals with it mildly; at Colossæ it had become more arrogant and intolerant and therefore, it is rebuked sharply. (See Colossians 2:16-23.)

The whole of this chapter affords a most striking instance of the practical wisdom of St. Paul. It is a locus classicus on the two subjects, toleration and asceticism.

Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13. One subject is before the Apostle’s mind throughout the whole of this section—the relations of “the strong” and “the weak” in the Church at Rome. It is connected in a variety of ways, which are felt rather than expressed, with what precedes. Thus it is pervaded by the same sense of the supreme importance of mutual love among Christians which characterises chaps. 12 and 13. It makes use, in much the same way as chap. Romans 13:11-14, of the impending judgment (Romans 14:10), to quicken the sense of individual and personal responsibility. Possibly, too, there is a more formal connection with chap. 13. Paul has been warning against the indulgence of the flesh (Romans 8:14), and this prompts him, by contrast, to speak of those who by an inadequate appreciation of Christian liberty were practising an “over-scrupulous asceticism”. There has been much discussion as to who “the weak” and “the strong” respectively were. The weakness is weakness in respect of faith; the weak man is one who does not fully appreciate what his Christianity means; in particular, he does not see that the soul which has committed itself to Christ for salvation is emancipated from all law but that which is involved in its responsibility to Him. Hence his conscience is fettered by scruples in regard to customs dating from pre-Christian days. The scruples in question here were connected with the use of flesh and wine, and with the religious observance of certain days (whether as fasts or feasts is open to question). Possibly the persons indulging such scruples were Jewish Christians, but they need not have been. They were certainly not legalists in principle, making the observance of the Jewish law or any part of it an essential condition of the Christian salvation; otherwise Paul, as the Epistle to the Galatians shows, would have addressed them in a different tone. Further, the Jewish law does not prescribe abstinence from wine or from animal food; and there is no suggestion here, as in 1 Corinthians 8, that the difficulty was about food that had been offered in sacrifice to false gods. Hence the influence at work in the Roman Church in producing this scrupulosity of conscience was probably of Essene origin, and akin to that which Paul subsequently treats with greater severity at Colossae (Colossians 2:16). At Rome the scruples were only scruples, and though there was danger in them because they rested on a defective apprehension of Christianity, they could be tenderly dealt with; at Colossae they had grown into or adapted themselves to a philosophy of religion which was fatal to Christianity; hence the change of tone. But though “the weak” need not have been Jews, the scruples in which their weakness was expressed, had so far Jewish connections and Jewish affinities; and it is probable, from the way in which (chap. Romans 15:7-13) the discussion of the relations of the weak and the strong passes over into an exhortation to unity between Jew and Gentile in the Church, that the two classifications had a general correspondence; the weak would be Jews or persons under Jewish influence; the strong would be Gentiles, or persons at least who understood the Gospel as it was preached to the Gentiles by Paul.

CHAPTER 14

Romans 14:3. καὶ ὁ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ὁ δέ, according to A B C D* א* 5. Clar. Goth. Clem. Damasc. Mechanical repetition from Romans 14:2.

Romans 14:4. δυνατὸς γάρ ἐστιν] A B C D* F G א have δυνατεῖ γάρ (commended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.); D*** Bas. Chrys.: δύνατος γάρ (so Fritzsche). The original is certainly δυνατεῖ γάρ; for δυνατέω is found elsewhere in the N. T. only in 2 Corinthians 13:3, and was there also in codd. exchanged for more current and better known expressions.

ὁ Θεός] A B C* P א, Copt. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Aeth. Aug. et al.: ὁ κύριος (so Lachm. and Tisch.), the origin of which, however, is betrayed by dominus ejus in Syr. Erp. It was here (at Romans 14:3 the connection furnished no occasion for it) written on the margin as a gloss, and supplanted the original ὁ Θεός.

Romans 14:5.] Instead of ὃς μέν, A C P א*, Vulg. codd. of It. Goth. and some Fathers have ὃς μὲν γάρ; so Lachm. (bracketing γάρ, however) and Tisch. 8. But the testimony in favour of the mere ὃς μέν is older, stronger, and more diffused; as is frequently the case, γάρ was here awkwardly inserted to connect the thought.

Romans 14:6. καὶ ὁ μὴ φρονῶν τὴν ἡμέραν, κυρίῳ οὐ φρονεῖ] is wanting in A B C* D E F G א, 23. 57. 67.** Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It. Ruf. Ambrosiast. Pel. Aug. Jer. al. Lat.; Chrys. and Theodoret have it in the text. Condemned by Mill, omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly, since the evidence for omission is so decisive, and since the interpolation was so very readily suggested by the sense of a want of completeness in the passage, in view of the following contrast, that the explanation of the omission from homoeoteleuton (Rückert, Reiche, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Philippi, Tischendorf, and several others)—however easily it might have been occasioned thereby (especially as καί before ὁ ἐσθίων, which Elz. has not, is undoubtedly genuine)—appears nevertheless insufficient. Among the oldest witnesses, Syr. is too solitary in its support of the words not to suggest the suspicion of an interpolation in the text of the Peschito.

Romans 14:8. ἀποθνήσκωμεν] Lachm. both times has ἀποθνήσκομεν, according to A D E F G P min. But Paul has in no other place ἐάν with pres. indic. (in Galatians 1:8 only K and min. have the indic.), and how easily might a slip of the pen take place here!

Romans 14:9. Before ἀπέθανε Elz. and cholz have καί, against decisive testimony.

After ἀπέθανε Elz. has καὶ ἀνέστη (which is wanting in A B C א*, Copt. Arm. Aeth. and Fathers), and afterwards, instead of ἔζησεν, ἀνέζησεν (against largely preponderating evidence). Further, F G, Vulg. Boern. Or. Cyr. (twice) Pel. Ambr. Fulgent. have not ἔζησεν at all, although they have ἀνέστη (therefore ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη); D E, Clar. Germ. Ir. Gaud. have even ἔζησε κ. ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη, but D** L P א** Syr. p. and several Fathers: ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη κ. ἔζησε. The origin of all these variations is readily explained from ἀπέθανε καὶ ἔζησεν (Lachm. and Tisch.), the best attested, and for that very reason, among the many differences, to be set down as original. First, ἔζησεν was glossed by ἀνέστη, comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:14. Thus there arose, through the adoption of the gloss instead of the original word, the reading ἀπέθανε καὶ ἀνέστη; and by the adoption of the gloss along with the original word, in some cases ἀπέθανε κ. ἔζηαε κ. ἀνέστη, in some cases ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη κ. ἔζησεν (so Matth.)—whence there then arose, by an accidental or designed repetition of the AN, the ἀπέθ. κ. ἀνέστη κ. ἀνέζησεν of the Recepta (very feebly attested, and diffused by Erasmus). Finally, the transposition ἔζησε κ. ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη was formed, after ἀπέθανε κ. ἀνέστη was already read, by mistaken criticism, inasmuch as there was a desire to restore the original ἔζησε, but the non-genuineness of ἀνέστη was as little known as the proper place for ἔζησε, and hence the latter, explained of the earthly life of Jesus, was placed before ἀπέθ.

Romans 14:10. Χριστοῦ] A B C* D E F G א* and several VSS. and Fathers: Θεοῦ. So Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche. Rightly; Χριστοῦ was introduced from the preceding, and perhaps also (comp. Rufinus) through comparison of 2 Corinthians 5:10.

Romans 14:12. δώσει] Lachm.: ἀποδώσει, according to B D* F G 39. Chrys. But this compound is the usual expression with λόγον.

Romans 14:14. αὐτοῦ] Elz.: ἑαυτοῦ, instead of αὐτοῦ (see exegetical notes). So again Tisch. 8, but only according to B C א, Chrys. Dam. Theophyl. A reflexive more precise definition.

Romans 14:15. δέ] Lachm. and Tisch.: γάρ, which Griesb. also commended, according to decisive testimony.

Romans 14:18. Instead of the Rec. ἐν τούτοις, Lachm. and Tisch. have ἐν τούτῳ, according to A B C D* F G P א*, 5. Vulg. It. Copt. Sahid. Ruf. Aug. But the Rec., sufficiently attested by D*** E L א**, and almost all min., Syr. utr. Goth. Chrys. Theodoret, Tert., is the more to be defended, since ἐν τούτῳ might very easily have intruded through the immediately preceding ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. It was less likely that τούτῳ should be converted into τούτοις on account of the plurality of the particulars contained in Romans 14:17. The latter is rightly retained by Beng. Matth. Reiche, Fritzsche, van Hengel, and various others.

Romans 14:19. διώκωμεν] The reading διώκομεν, adopted by Tisch. 8, although in A B F G L P א, is an old error of the pen, attested by no version, abandoned rightly also by Lachm. ed. maj. (in the ed. min. he had adopted it, written ἆρα, and taken the sentence interrogatively).

After ἀλλήλ. D E F G, Vulg. It. and a few Fathers have φυλάξωμεν. A supplement.

Romans 14:21. ἢ σκανδ. ἢ ἀσθ.] omitted by Tisch. 8, is wanting in AC 67.** Syr. Erp. Copt. Aeth. and some Fathers, including Origen. The former is suspicious as an addition from Romans 14:13, the latter as a gloss. However, in the case of synonyms, one or the other was often omitted, as e.g., in Romans 14:13, πρόσκομμα (and therewith ἤ) is wanting in B, and the evidence in favour of omission is not here sufficiently strong to condemn the words. Instead of προσκ. ἢ σκανδ. ἢ ἀσθ., א* has merely λυπεῖται, a gloss in itself correct according to Romans 14:15.

Romans 14:22. After πίστιν Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ἥν, according to A B C א, Copt. Ruf. Aug. Pel. A double writing of IN, or explanatory resolution, to which the weight of evidence of almost all VSS. and Greek Fathers especially is opposed.

On the doxology, Romans 16:25-27, not belonging to the end of chap. 14, see critical notes on chap. 16.

As elsewhere (Acts 15:1; Acts 15:5; Galatians 3:1 ff.; Colossians 2:16 ff.), so there were even in the predominantly Gentile-Christian community at Rome, among the Jewish-Christian minority belonging to it, persons who sought still to retain the standpoint of pre-Christian legalism. But these Jewish-Christians in Rome had not, as elsewhere, come forward as the defenders of circumcision, or generally in an aggressive anti-Pauline attitude. Hence Paul speaks of them in so forbearing and mild a way, and keeps direct polemics entirely in the background. They were men not of hostile, but only of prejudiced minds, whose moral consciousness lacked the vigour to regard as unessential a peculiar asceticism, according to which they ate no flesh (Romans 14:2), and drank no wine (Romans 14:21), and still held to the observance of the Jewish feast-days (Romans 14:5), passing judgment withal, as is usually the case with men of a separatist bias, on those who were more free, but only earning the contempt of these in return. In presence of this asceticism, and in respect of its main feature, namely, abstinence from flesh and wine, the question arises: Was it based generally (Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Calovius, and many others, including Reiche and Köllner) on the Mosaic-Jewish ordinances respecting meat and drink? or, in particular (Clement of Alexandria, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Michaelis, Anm., Flatt, Neander, Reithmayr, Tholuck, Philippi), on the dread of heathen sacrificial flesh and sacrificial wine (comp. the apostolic decrees, Acts 15)? or on both (Erasmus, Toletus, and others, including Rückert, Borger, de Wette)? Against the first of these three possibilities it may be urged that Romans 14:2; Romans 14:21 do not allow us to assume any limitation of the abstinence at all, but require it to be understood of flesh and wine generally; while, on the other hand, the law does not forbid all flesh and does not forbid wine at all, and the Rabbins forbid only the flesh slaughtered by the Goyim and the wine of the Goyim (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. II. pp. 616 ff., 620 ff.). To assume now, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, that those persons had abstained from all flesh for the reason that they might not be blamed by the others on account of their despising swine’s flesh, or from contempt towards the Gentiles (τινές in Theodoret), would be completely arbitrary, indeed opposed to the text; for they themselves were on one side the censurers, on the other the despised, Romans 14:3. Against the second opinion, that the abstinence in question referred only to the flesh offered in sacrifice to idols (Acts 15) and the wine of libation (see Mischn. Surenh. IV. pp. 369, 384; Eisenmenger, l.c. p. 621), it may be urged that the whole section contains not a word on the sacrificial character of the flesh and wine, while yet we are bound to conclude from 1 Corinthians 8, 10 that Paul would not have passed by this essential aspect of the matter without touching on it and turning it to account. Hence also the third view, which combines these, cannot be approved. In fact, the Jewish-Christian abstinence in question appears rather to be a supra-legal anxiety, such as was nothing rare in Judaism at that time (Philo, in Eusebius, Praep. ev. viii. fin.; Josephus, Vit. 2, 3; Grotius on Romans 14:2; Ritschl, in the theol. Jahrb. 1855, p. 353), under the influence of Essenic principles (see Ritschl, altkath. K. pp. 184, 187). It appears certainly as an ἐθελοθρησκεία, brought over from Judaism into Christianity by persons of Essenic tendencies, and fostered by the ethics of Christianity, which combated the flesh. By its adherents, however, among the Jewish-Christians of Rome at that time, it was not maintained in opposition to justification by faith, but was so practised without pretentiousness and polemics (and in particular without separation from a common table with the Gentile Christians), that the wisdom of the apostolic teaching deemed it inappropriate to enter into special conflict with such a remnant of an Essenic Ἰουδαΐζειν, or to speak of it otherwise than with the most cautious forbearance. Baur, I. p. 381 ff., declares those persons to be Ebionite Christians (according to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 15, the Ebionites abstained from all use of flesh, because flesh originated from generation; see Ritschl, p. 205). But against this view it may at once be urged, that complete abstinence from wine on the part of the Ebionites is nowhere expressly attested; and further, that, if the weak brethren at Rome had been persons who regarded the use of flesh as on principle and absolutely sinful, as was the case with Ebionitism, Paul would not have expressed himself so mildly and tolerantly respecting an error which would have been fundamental, dualistic as it was and opposed to justification by faith. Moreover, the Ebionites date only from the destruction of Jerusalem (see Ullhorn, d. Homil. u. Recogn. d. Clem. p. 387 ff.); hence the Roman weak brethren could only be termed Ebionitic in so far as their abstinence had the same root with the asceticism of the Ebionites, viz. Essenism. That among the numerous Roman Jews, who had arrived as prisoners of war from Palestine, there were various Essenes who thereafter became Christians, cannot be subject to any well-founded doubt (comp. Ritschl, p. 233 f.). And the less reason is there to call in question not merely the Ebionitic, but also the Essenic, root of the phenomenon (Th. Schott). To refer it to the general interest of world—denying holiness does not suffice for the explanation of the several passages, and in particular does not explain the observance of days and the impure character which was attributed to the use of flesh (Romans 14:14). Hence, too, we are not, with Hofmann, to abide by the mere general conclusion, that doubt prevailed as to whether it was compatible with the holiness of the church of God to use such food as man had not assigned to him from the beginning, and as the Christian should for this very reason rather dispense with than enjoy for the sake of good cheer. Thus the matter would amount to an odd theoretic reflection, without any connection with historical concrete antecedent relations,—a view with which we can the less be content, since the observance of days cannot exegetically be got rid of as a point which had likewise occasioned dispute (see on Romans 14:5). Eichhorn takes the weak brethren to be earlier, mostly Gentile-Christian adherents of ascetico-philosophic, chiefly Neo-Pythagorean principles. There was certainly at that time diffused among the Gentiles, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, an abstinence quite analogous to that Jewish one, as we know from Senec. Ep. 108, Porphyr. De abstin., and others (see Grotius on Romans 14:2, and Reiche, II. p. 463 f.); but, on the other hand, that view is at variance partly with Romans 14:5 (comp. Colossians 2:16-17), partly with Romans 15:8-9, where Paul sedulously brings into view the theocratic dignity of the Jews, while he bids the Gentiles praise God on account of grace—which is most in harmony with the view that the despised weak ones are to be sought among the former. It may be also conjectured a priori that our ascetics, if they had arrived at their habit by the path of philosophy, would hardly have behaved themselves in so passive and unpretentious a manner and have been merely regarded by Paul just as weak ones. We may add that Romans 14:5-6 do not justify us in assuming two parties among the Roman weak brethren, so that the κρίνοντες ἡμέραν παρʼ ἡμέραν, Romans 14:5, are to be distinguished from the λάχανα ἐσθίοντες, Romans 14:2,—the former as the stricter and probably Palestinian, the latter as the freer and probably Hellenistic, Jewish

Christians (so Philippi). As the observance of the feast days, especially of the Sabbaths, was essentially bound up with the Essenic tendency, the assumption of such a separation cannot be justified exegetically (from the κρίνειν.) Just as little is there exegetical ground for the view that the community addressed and instructed in Romans 14:1 ff. is notified as being Jewish-Christian in its main composition; whereas Romans 15:1 ff. betrays a Gentile-Christian minority, which had been more exclusive and intolerant towards the weak than the great body of the church, the relation of whom to the weak the apostle has in view in chap. 14 (Mangold, p. 60 ff.)