Albert Barnes Commentary Romans 14

ROMANS Chapter 14

The fourteenth chapter is designed to settle some difficult and delicate questions that would inevitably arise between the Jews and Gentiles regarding 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 a significant part of the church was composed of them.

The New Testament everywhere shows that they were inclined to bind the Gentile converts to their own customs and to insist on the observance of the peculiar laws of Moses. See Acts 15:1-2 and following; Galatians 2:3–4. The subjects on which questions of this kind would be debated were circumcision, days of fasting, the distinction of meats, etc. Only a part of these are discussed in this chapter. The views of the apostle regarding circumcision had been stated in chapters 3 and 4. In this chapter he notices the disputes that 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 presented by the apostle to settle principles of conduct regarding the Gentiles, and to show each party how they should act in all such questions.

The apostle's design here is to settle all these contentions by producing peace, kindness, and charity. This he does through 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 and following).
3. That we must stand at the judgment seat of Christ and give an account there; and that we, therefore, should not usurp the role of judging (Romans 14:10–13).
4. That there is really nothing unclean in 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 a significant part of the controversies in the religious world.

Him that is weak. The design here is to encourage Christians to welcome into their fellowship those who had scruples about the appropriateness of certain things, or who might have peculiar prejudices and feelings as a result of education or former habits of belief. The apostle, therefore, begins by admitting that such a person may be weak, i.e., not fully established, or not having such clear and broad views about Christian liberty as 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 often have a peculiar delicacy or sensitiveness about the lawfulness of many things regarding 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; do not meet him with a cold and harsh repulse. Compare to 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 regarding 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 that 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 encourage 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.

1. 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, and so on.

   Another, who is weak. There is reference here, undoubtedly, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was weak, that is, not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question for the Jew, undoubtedly, was whether it was lawful to eat the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols.

   In those sacrifices, only a part of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshipers 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).

   The apostle discussed and settled this question in 1 Corinthians 10:20–32 (which should be consulted). In that passage, the general principle is laid down that it was lawful to partake of that meat as one 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 idolaters in their worship (1 Corinthians 10:28). However, many Jewish converts might not have been familiar with this principle, or, just as probably, they might not have been inclined to accept its appropriateness.

   Eateth herbs. This means herbs or vegetables only; he does not partake of meat at all, for fear of unintentionally eating that which had been offered to idols. The Romans had abundant sacrifices to idols, and it would not be easy to be certain that meat offered in the market, or on a friend's table, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even unknowingly, they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on this subject might have arisen partly from the fact that sins of ignorance among them incurred certain penalties (Leviticus 4:2–3 and following; Leviticus 5:15; Numbers 15:24, 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, so 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 aptly 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 aptly chosen. The Jew would not be so likely to despise the Gentile for what he did as to judge or condemn him. He would consider 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 aptly addressed the whole issue in all disputes about rites, dress, and scruples in religious matters that are not essential. One party commonly despises the other as being needlessly and foolishly scrupulous, while the other makes it a matter of conscience—too serious for ridicule and contempt—and a matter whose neglect, in their view, deserves 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 only tend to confirm him in his views.

And to the other party it should be said that 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. If this simple rule had been followed, how much strife and even bloodshed it would have spared in the church!

Most contentions among Christians have arisen from subjects of this nature. Though agreeing substantially on the doctrines of the Bible, they have often been divided into sects over issues about as important as those 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 has received him kindly, acknowledged him as His own friend, or recognized him as a true Christian.

These scruples, on one side or the other, are not inconsistent with true piety. As God has acknowledged him as His, notwithstanding his opinions on these subjects, we also ought to recognize him as a Christian brother.

Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognized by God as His. Where this evidence exists, we should neither despise nor judge them.

Who are you, etc. That is, who gave you this right to sit in judgment on others? . 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 judge, etc. . 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 stands or falls. 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.

Yes, he shall be held 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 held up.

He shall not be allowed to fall into condemnation, for it is the purpose of God to keep him. . 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. . 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, judges (krinei). The word is here properly translated esteemeth. Compare Acts 13:46; 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, fasts, and Sabbaths as peculiarly sacred, and who would retain, to a significant 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 peculiar 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 Galatians 2.

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 debated 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 peculiar 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. See the notes on 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 does not know that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned with 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 person 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 day from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ. Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive has never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

Let every man, etc. 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, 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.