ROMAS 14 COMMETARYEDITED BY GLE PEASE

ITRODUCTIO

This passage deals with a number of paradoxes. Can the same action or behavior be

both good and evil? Can what is right also be wrong? Can what I enjoy and thank

God for, be a sin for you to enjoy? Can I do something that is okey with God, but it

still becomes a sin?

How are we to know the will of God with any certainty? The will of God falls into

three categories that help us discern his will. A person going to a doctor and getting

the doctors advice illustrates the point.

When Christians of equal love for Christ and His Word, and with equal

intelligence have different convictions on what is right and wrong, how are we

to know who is right, and who best knows the will of God? Romans 14 is

Paul's struggle with this issue. He helps us see some principles to use in

making decisions. The over all breakdown is this:

1. God permits some things-verse 2.

2. God prescribes some things-verse 3.

3. God prohibits some things-verse 13.

HOKE, There seems to be something within each of us that wants to set up rules of

conduct laws for living. We would like to have a simple answer for every

situation we face. But some situations are not that simple.

We want simple answers to every issue, but that is unrealistic, for there are no

simple answers to many issues. It is because people see things from different

perspectives and with different backgrounds and different interests and goals.

Christians are on all sides of political issues and many are Democrats and many are

Republicans and many are Independents. They are divided on many social issues,

and just about every issues there is you will find Christians on opposite sides.

Why is it that Christians are usually on both sides of most every controversial issue?

Differences are inevitable because of different backgrounds and traditions. James

W. Crawford writes,

"There is a broad range of members in that church: Jews, gentiles, men

and women of various religious background, or no religious background--a

miniature of cosmopolitan Rome. The conflict seems to bubble up

between members who practice their piety in different ways. There

is, on the one hand, what we might call a conservative

camp. The conservatives believe that in order to be true

to the faith and their religious identity they must adhere to

a rigid diet, make certain days sacrosanct, dress in a particular

fashion, assemble their worship in a specific order. These practices,

they believe, are basic to the faithful expression of their religious

faith. On the other hand, what we will call the liberals, see these particular

practices as largely irrelevant. The liberals would make any day the Sabbath

as Christ had redeemed all the time. They set aside prayer rituals,

dietary laws, dress codes as being non-essential because of their

new freedom in Christ. And here's the rub: The conservative

faction looks on the liberal faction as permissive,

libertarian sellouts, finger-to-the- wind Christians, devoid

of discipline, accommodating to trends of the times, betrayers

of tradition. The liberals see the conservatives

as pinched, rigid, doctrinaire, confusing trivialities with the

real mandates of the Gospel, those who need mundane practices

to prop up their faith. As a result, the Roman congregation seethes

with mutual hostility and contempt. The separate factions deride,

mock, and malign each other. And for Paul, the worst thing they

do is to call into question the integrity of one another's faith.

If you don't do it my way, you're outside the pale. If you

don't believe the way I do, you're a heretic, a pagan, a religious

fraud.

It is always God's will that His children live in harmony with one another. Unity is

essential for there to be victory over the forces of darkness.

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

(Psa.

133:1)

MARK COPELAD

1. An important part of the Christian life is getting along with

brethren...

a. Jesus prayed for unity among believers - Jn 17:20-23

b. Paul condemned division among Christians - 1 Co 1:10-13

c. Jesus died to make Jew and Gentile one new man and one body - Ep

2:14-16

2. Unity did not come easily in the early church...

a. Jewish Christians were reluctant to accept Gentile Christians

- cf. Ac 15:1-5

b. Knowledgeable Christians were not always considerate - cf. 1 Co

8:10-12

3. Unity does not come easily in the church today...

a. People come into the kingdom from all sorts of religious

backgrounds

b. Their level of knowledge, their rate of spiritual growth, varies

widely

Tom Roberts writes, "Our text to be analyzed, Romans

14:1-15:7, beautifully sets forth the parameters of our liberties in Christ. Counter-

balancing between the tendency to bind where God has not bound and giving license

to sin, this passage advocates fellowship through the respect of each brother's

liberties. Without the truth of these verses, Christians will be hopelessly splintered

in as many pieces as there are opinions or else be invaded by sinful doctrine and

practices The sufficiency of God's revelation clearly defines what is required and

forbidden 2 John 9-11; Jude 3). In these areas we have no choice but to obey. But

the sufficient revelation also establishes the category of things allowed, also known

as authorized liberties,options and expediencies,matters of indifference to God.

Here, we may allow differences among brethren without compromising any

principle of truth. The early preachers in America recognized this as they sought to

restore pure religion in their generation. Their cry was: In matters of faith, unity; in

matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, charity."

We see three categories of behaviour in this passage.

Things that are right=the commanded.

Things that are wrong=the forbidden.

Things that dont matter=the permitted.

Some people say the first two are not right, for all is relative and you cannot put

anything as absolutely right or wrong. Others say the last one is not right for

everything is either black or white and nothing is relative. These both have one

thing in common, they are both wrong, for the Bible makes it clear there are

absolutes and their are relatives. Liberals question the first two and

conservatives the last one. If you are always a liberal, or always a conservative,

you will be always wrong at some point. Some things are always right and some

always wrong and some things that are always, or rather most always neutral. I

say most always, because Paul makes it clear that even something that is okey is

wrong if you hurt others by doing it. There is never anything wrong with

throwing a baseball, except when it is through my front window, or anybody

elses.

MACARTHUR, How do we deal with the issues of life that are not moral in and of

themselves? Such issues as food, drink, recreation, television, movies, books,

magazines, sports, Sunday activities, cards, games, smoking, hair styles, clothing

styles, music styles, etc., etc.

I went away to college, at a very narrow, kind of circumscribed legalistic school, and

everything was reduced to rules. We had rules for everything. In fact, we used to say

the school song was, "I don't smoke, and I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that

do!" And that sort of summed up the whole approach to spiritual life. Everything

was reduced to some kind of list of things that were forbidden. That's pretty typical

for an older generation of Christians. That is pretty typical today for a more

contemporary church in other parts of the world. Certainly the church in Eastern

Europe has many traditions and many rules that binds its conduct in nonmoral

issues. One of the things that struck me as a fascinating thing about the Church in

the Soviet Union is that if you are really spiritual, you button all the buttons on your

coat. If you have any of them unbuttoned that is a sign of a lack of spirituality. If

you are sitting on the platform and your legs are crossed or your feet are crossed,

someone will poke you and say please uncross your legs or uncross your feet, that is

not a spiritual way to behave.

How do you act toward other believers when their behavior doesnt meet your

standard? What do you do when you see a believer engaging in what you call

questionable activity? How do you react when someone tries to make you over into

their image? The issue is Liberty verses Legalism.

The Weak and the Strong

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing

judgment on disputable matters.

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

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

Receive ye - Admit to your society or fellowship: receive him kindly, not meet with a cold and harsh repulse; compare Rom_15:7.

Not to doubtful disputations - The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, by the natural reaction of such a course, confirming him in his doubts. Or, do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc. (Stuart.) The leading idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of

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.

CLARKE, Him that is weak in the faith - By this the apostle most evidently means the converted Jew, who must indeed be weak in the faith, if he considered this distinction of meats and days essential to his salvation. See on Rom_14:21 (note).

Receive ye - Associate with him; receive him into your religious fellowship; but when there, let all religious altercations be avoided.

Not to doubtful disputations - . These words have been variously translated and understood. Dr. Whitby thinks the sense of them to be this; Not discriminating them by their inward thoughts. Do not reject any from your Christian communion because of their particular sentiments on things which are in themselves indifferent. Do not curiously inquire into their religious scruples, nor condemn them on that account. Entertain a brother of this kind rather with what may profit his soul, than with curious disquisitions on speculative points of doctrine. A good lesson for modern Christians in general.

GILL, Him that is weak in the faith,.... This address is made to the stronger and more knowing Christians among the Romans, how to behave towards those that were inferior in light and knowledge to them, with regard to things of a ritual and ceremonial kind: and by "him that is weak in the faith", is meant, either one that is weak in the exercise of the grace of faith, who has but a glimmering sight of Christ; who comes to him in a very feeble and trembling manner; who believes his ability to save him, but hesitates about his willingness; who casts himself with a peradventure on him; and who is attended with many misgivings of heart, faintings of spirit, and fluctuation of mind, about his interest in him: or one that is weak in the doctrine of faith; has but little light and knowledge in the truths of the Gospel; is a child in understanding; has more affection than judgment; very little able to distinguish truth from error; cannot digest the greater and more sublime doctrines of grace; stands in need of milk, and cannot bear strong meat; is very fluctuating and unsettled in his principles, and like children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine: or rather one that is weak in his knowledge of that branch of the doctrine of faith, which concerns Christian liberty; and that part of it particularly, which respects freedom from the ceremonial law: it designs one, and chiefly a Jew, who though a believer in Christ, and an embracer of the other truths of the Gospel, yet had but very little knowledge of Gospel liberty; but though that believers were to observe all the rituals of the Mosaic dispensation, not knowing that they were abolished by Christ. The phrase is Jewish; it is (m) said,

"what is the meaning of the phrase, in Rephidim, Exo_17:1 it signifies such as are of

weak hands; as if it had been said, because the Israelites were ,"weakintheir

faith".''

Theadvicetheapostlegives,inreferencetosuchaperson,isto

receivereceivereceivereceivehim;notonlyintotheiraffections,andlovehimequally,beingabelieverinChrist,asone

ofthesamesentimentswiththem,onlyinthismatter,butalsointochurchfellowshipwiththem.

TheSyriacversionreadsit,,"givehimthehand":intokenofcommunion,aform

usedinadmissionofmembers.TheGentileswereapttoboastagainst,andlookwithsome

contemptupontheJews,andwerereadytoobjecttotheircommunion,becauseoftheirwantof

lightandknowledgeinthesematters;butthiswasnobarofcommunion,noroughtapersontobe

rejectedonaccountofhisweakness,eitherinthegrace,orinthedoctrineoffaith,whenit

appearshehasthetruegraceofGod;andmuchlessonaccountofhisweaknessinthatbranchof

it,concerningChristianliberty;forsinceChristdoesnotbreakthebruisedreed,norquenchthe

smokingflax,nordespisethedayofsmallthings,churchesshouldnot:itmayalsointenda

receivingofsuchintointimateconversation,attheirprivatemeetingsandconferences;taking

particularnoticeofthem;givingthemproperinstructions;prayingwiththemandforthem;

endeavouringtobuildthemupintheirmostholyfaith,andtobringthemintotheknowledgeof

thosethingstheyareweakin;bearingtheirweaknessespatiently,andbearingwiththemingreat

tenderness:thussuchshouldbereceived,

butnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputationsbutnottodoubtfuldisputations;tovainjanglingandperversedisputings,suchaswillrather

perplexthaninformthem;andwillleavetheirmindsdoubtfulandinsuspense,anddothemmore

harmthangood.

HERY, We have in this chapter,

I. An account of the unhappy contention which had broken out in the Christian church. Our Master had foretold that offences would come; and, it seems, so they did, for want of that wisdom and love which would have prevented discord, and kept up union among them.

1. There was a difference among them about the distinction of meats and days; these are the two things specified. There might be other similar occasions of difference, while these made the most noise, and were most taken notice of. The case was this: The members of the Christian church at Rome were some of them originally Gentiles, and others of them Jews. We find Jews at Rome believing, Act_28:24. Now those that had

been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial appointments touching meats and days. This, which had been bred in the bone with them, could hardly be got out of the flesh, even after they turned Christians; especially with some of them, who were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They were not well instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ, and therefore retained the ceremonial institutions, and practised accordingly; while other Christians that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian liberty, made no such difference

JAMISO, Rom_14:1-23. Same subject continued - Christian forbearance.

The subject here, and on to Rom_15:13, is the consideration due from stronger Christians to their weaker brethren; which is but the great law of love (treated of in the thirteenth chapter) in one particular form.

Him that is weak in the faith rather, in faith; that is, not him that is weak in the truth believed [Calvin, Beza, Alford, etc.], but (as most interpreters agree), him whose faith wants that firmness and breadth which would raise him above small scruples. (See on Rom_14:22, Rom_14:23).

receive ye to cordial Christian fellowship.

but not to doubtful disputations rather, perhaps, not to the deciding of doubts, or scruples; that is, not for the purpose of arguing him out of them: which indeed usually does the reverse; whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and cordial interchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way of drawing them off. Two examples of such scruples are here specified, touching Jewish meats and days. The strong, it will be observed, are those who knew these to be abolished under the Gospel; the weak are those who had scruples on this point.

CALVIN, 1.Him indeed, etc. He passes on now to lay down a precept especially necessary for the

sustain their weakness; for among the people of God there are some weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion. And it is very probable that this happened especially at that time; for the Churches were formed of both Jews and Gentiles; some of whom, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law, having been brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them; and there were others who, having never learnt such things, refused a yoke to which they had not been accustomed. (413)

Now, as man disposition is to slide from a difference in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how they who thus vary in their opinions may live together without any discord; and he prescribes this as the best mode, that they who are strong should spend their labor in assisting the weak, and that they who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant. For God, by making us stronger than others, does not bestow strength that we may oppress the weak; nor is it the part of Christian wisdom to be above measure insolent, and to despise others. The import then of what he addresses to the more intelligent and the already CONFIRMED , is this, that the ampler the grace which they had received from the Lord, the more bound they were to help their neighbors.

Not for the debatings of questions. (414) This is a defective sentence, as the word which is necessary to complete the sense is wanting. It appears, however, evident, that he meant nothing else than that the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he now handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that this was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to

press the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith. (415)

He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established, or which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be disquieted and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.

(413) Some, as [Haldane ], have found fault with this classification, as there is nothing in the chapter which countenances it. But as the Apostle object throughout the epistle was to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles, there is reason sufficient to regard them as the two parties here intended: and, as [Chalmers ] justly observes, it is more probable that the Gentiles were the despisers, inasmuch as the Jews, who, like Paul, had got over their prejudices, were no doubt disposed to sympathize with their brethren, who were still held fast by them. Ed.

(414) Non ad disceptationes quaestionum , non ad altercationes disceptationum not for the altercations of disputings or debatings, [Beza ]; to debates about matter in doubt, [Doddridge ]; in order to the strifes of disputations, [Macknight ]. Both words are in the plural NUMBER ; therefore to give the first the sense of as [Hodge ] does, cannot be right;

is untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see Luk_24:38, and 1Ti_2:8. according to the frequent import of the preposition the sentence may be thus paraphrased, who is weak in the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts, or, in reasonings, or, in disputations. Ed.

(415) [Scott ] remarks on this verse are striking and appropriate, he says, authority vested by Christ in his Apostles, and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind, differences of opinion prevailed even among real Christians; nor did St. Paul, by an express decision and command, attempt to put a final termination to them. A proposition indeed may be certain and important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due preparation of mind and heart; so that a compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without conviction, would in general be hypocrisy, and entirely UNAVAILING . So essential are the rights and existence of private judgment, in all possible cases, to the exercise of true religion! and so useless an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding controversies, and producing unanimity among Christians!

THOMAS SMITH ow to consider what Paul meant by the term weak in Romans

14. He had in mind those Christians whose consciences are disturbed by the

practices of other Christians in areas to do with the literal obedience of the

ceremonial part of the Old Testament law. The weak, felt that they could not, with

a clear conscience, give up the observance of such ritual requirements as the

distinction between clean and unclean foods and the keeping of special days.

i. This is why it appears that the division between the weak and the

strong was also, to a large extent, one between Jewish and Gentile

Christians. (This agrees well with the use of 'ritually unclean' in 14.14

and of 'clean' in 14.20. Possibly some Christians in a pagan city, wishing

to be sure of avoiding meat which may have been unclean according to

the Old Testament ritual law, decided to simply abstain altogether from

meat.)

Gary Vanderet

Before we come to the text, it is important to understand what Paul means by these

terms. When he uses the word "weak," he is not referring to someone with a weak

character, one who gives in easily to temptation. He is speaking of one who is

"weak" in faith, whose faith doesn't permit him to do certain things. This person

does not lack self-control; what he lacks is freedom.

This is the principle of unconditional acceptance, especially of the "weak in faith."

That word "accept" means more than a mere acknowledgment of their right to

belong. John Stott comments: "It implies the warmth and kindness of love."[2] The

word is used elsewhere in the ew Testament of Philemon giving Onesimus the

same welcome that he would give an apostle. It is also used of the welcome that

believers will receive from Jesus when we are ushered into his presence in heaven

(John 14:3). The "weak" are not to be rejected, ignored or treated as second class

believers. Paul adds, "but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions."

We don't accept one who is "weak" in order to debate or argue with him. Our

acceptance and welcome come without ulterior motives or hidden agendas. We are

to respect the opinions of others.

i. That word translated "opinions" in the ASB, or "disputable

matters" in the IV, deals with areas that Christians do not have to agree

about. The sixteenth century Reformers called these "matters of

indifference." In matters where Scripture is unequivocally clear and

absolute, where truth is stated in such a way that is unmistakable, it is

sinful for us to debate those issues.

Paul is saying that Christians will differ on these issues, but that shouldn't make any

difference with respect to how we treat one another. We should accept one another,

but not for the purpose of sinful debate. David Roper puts it this way: "Don't accept

your brother into the fellowship and then invite him over to your house to

straighten him out. That seems to be the Christian's favorite indoor sport --

straightening out other Christians. There is really only one person in the world we

can do very much about. Where the Spirit of God has been ambiguous, we must not

be definitive. Where God has been clear, we can be clear. Where God has

commanded a truth, we can believe it with assurance. But where Scripture is not

clear, we must not be dogmatic."[4] That doesn't mean we can't have personal

convictions about these issues. Paul says that each person should be convinced in his

or her own mind. But we have to accept one another.

Disputable matters is the issue here and not issues where there is no dispute.

obody says breaking the ten commandments is okey sometimes and should not be

judged. Christians have an obligation to judge what is clearly out of Gods will.

In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives the following instruction for dealing with the sin of

a brother in Christ. First you must go to him and tell him his sin. If he doesn't listen

to you, you're to take witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, you're to tell the whole

church. If he doesn't listen to the church, the church is to consider him as an

unbeliever. That passage is necessary because sin has such a crippling effect on the

body of believers.

In 2 Thessalonians Paul says to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that

walketh disorderly" (3:6f).

JOH MACARTHUR

Within the church are people at all different levels of life, both physically and

spiritually--young people to old people. Some people have been saved fifty years;

others have come to know Christ within the last forty-eight hours. Some come from

irreligious, atheistic, or humanistic backgrounds; others come from devout Roman

Catholic families. Some used to be Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Some come

from legalistic fundamentalist churches, and others come from loose, free-wheeling

churches.

Such diversity is a good thing, but it tends to bring about clashes. The church is not

only made up of Christians at every level of maturity, but we all have one thing in

common as well: although we have been redeemed, we are hindered by our flesh

(Rom. 6-7). (evertheless, according to Romans 8, victory is ours through the Holy

Spirit.) It is as important to deal with the conflict of diverse people, all with

unredeemed flesh, as it is to deal with overt sin. Some have said to me, "Why don't

the ladies wear hats?" They are concerned because they came from a background

where the ladies wore hats. Others have asked me, "Why don't you have any

candles?" It is difficult for them to worship without candles because that has been

their lifetime of experience. Some have been offended by certain hairstyles because

some churches judge a person's spirituality by the length of his hair. Some are

offended by certain styles of music. Some don't have a problem with drinking while

others view it as a vile sin. There are some who wouldn't miss the latest movie while

others wouldn't darken the door of a theater for fear that God would strike them

dead, like Ananias and Sapphira, at the box office!

(a) The strong

Liberated brothers and sisters in Christ fully understand what it means to be free in

Christ-- they don't cling to meaningless traditions and forms of religion. They

understand fully that they are free from sin, death, hell, and Satan. They

understand they are not obligated to follow holy days and ceremonies. They know

they are free to make choices dependent on how the Spirit of God moves in their

hearts. Such people are strong in the faith.

(b) The weak

These individuals continue to hang onto the rituals and ceremonies of their past,

refusing to let go. They don't believe they have freedom in Christ to do otherwise.

Such freedom threatens them, so they prefer remain as they are.

(a) The contempt of the strong

The strong are tempted to look down on the weak as legalistic, faithless people who

get in the way of those who are trying to enjoy their liberty. They resent the weak

for labeling their rightful freedoms in Christ as sin.

(b) The condemnation of the weak

The weak tend to condemn the strong for what they see as an abuse of liberty.

The conflict in the church at Rome was between the legalistic believer who saw

liberty as sinful and the liberated believer who saw legalism as sinful. Paul gave four

principles to deal with that conflict: receive one another with understanding (Rom.

14:1- 12), build up one another without offending (14:13-23), please one another as

Christ did (15:1-7), and rejoice with one another in God's plan (15:8-13).

As recipients of the blessings of the ew Covenant, we are free to enjoy all that God

has provided without any restrictions in terms of non-moral issues. But certain

people attempt to convince us that we're not free to eat or drink certain things.

Others tell us our recreation is limited. Some tell us we cannot watch television or

movies. Others tell us cigarettes or playing cards are in themselves evil. Some tell us

that a man should not let his hair grow over his ears or wear a beard. Yet others tell

us that not wearing a beard is unspiritual. All those things have nothing to do with

what Scripture clearly delineates as sin. They are neutral--neither right or wrong

according to Scripture--and are the elements of Christian liberty.

The two issues that Paul deals with here are diet and days of worship. Diet

cannot be wrong whatever you eat for as Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:4, "For

everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received

with thanksgiving." . Paul says in Romans 14:14, "As one who is in the Lord

Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself." Sometimes we

say this is so good it must be sinful, but it is not. The only way it can be sinful

to eat any particular food in and of itself is when you offend another by doing

so. It is not the food that is the problem, but your insensitivity.

Remember that man covers women as well. It is a generic word for mankind. Paul

knew women could have opposite opinions also, and so he is not suggesting that only

men can have differences, with some being weak and others strong in faith.

The one who is weak in faith is one who has not so grasped the new faith in Christ

that he has risen above having distinctions concerning meats and days. obody

gives up a religious conviction easy. A Jew who has held certain ideas all of his life

is not going to find it easy to forsake them when he becomes a Christian. Many

Jews who became Christians brought with them old ideas from Judaism, and this

made them quite legalistic. The strong in faith are those who put away dependence

upon the law and lean wholly on the grace of Jesus for their assurance. All of us are

weak to some degree, in some area, even if not in the issues involved here.

To Him our weakness clings

Through tribulation sore;

We seek the comfort of His wings

'Till all be o'er.

The one weak in faith has not grasped fully what justification by faith is all about.

A person can be a Christians and have wrong ideas about salvation. They still trust

Christ, but have old ideas of salvation by works still in their minds. They are still

saved and are to be welcomed. obody who loves and trusts Jesus is to be rejected,

even if they have some strange or false ideas. We have no right to demand of others

what God does not demand for fellowship with Himself. He has masses of His

children who have ideas that are far from what they ought to be. That is what

Christian growth is all about. You have to start somewhere, and many of the early

Christians started as Jews who lived all their life under the law. Paul is defending

the rights of the minority to full fellowship in the church. The weak are not strong

enough to push their way in. They need acceptance to feel welcome.

Calvin writes, "They who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine

should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant, and employ their own

strength to sustain their weakness, for among the people of God there are some

weaker than others, and who, except they are treated with great tenderness and

kindness, will be discouraged, and become at length alienated from religion." All

Christians are strong or weak at different times and on different issues, and all at

some point will have scruples.

Paul is not suggesting a Welcome Week, but he is saying we must always be ready

to Welcome the Weak. It is essential that the stronger Christians welcome the

weaker Christians, for that is there only hope of becoming stronger. We are not to

become like the Pharisees and look down our noses at those who have not come to

all the same conclusions that we have. Pride is not to be a part of Christian

fellowship. We are not to let differences break the unity that we have in Christ.

The strong who cannot welcome the weak are really weaker than the weak.

The weak in faith are not the same as the wrong in faith. If a person is teaching

something contrary to the teaching of Christ he is not to be welcomed-2John 9-10.

We are to pass judgment upon views that

contradict the Bible (Titus 1:9-11; 2 Tim. 4:2; 2:18; 1 Tim. 6:3-4;

1:3; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 15:12; Romans 3:8).

But if, as some say, this chapter includes doctrinal error,

then they must accept the following conclusions: a. Every brother

engaged in sin and error is to be accepted. b. Sin and error is

a matter of personal opinion. Hence no absolute right and wrong.

c. We cannot preach against anything, except intolerance.

Christians who strive for exclusiveness are not filled with the mind or spirit of

Christ. ewell rebukes certain groups and writes, "Unless a man pronounces

"shibboleth" their way, there is not the thought of receiving him. This is the

Phariseeism of the last days. And sad to say it is most found among those most

enlightened in the truth, for "knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." Where

faith in Christ in the least degree is found, we should be thankfully delighted, and

should welcome such believers."

Parker in the People's Bible writes, "He never told the weak man a lie.

Steadily and frankly he persevered in telling the weak man that he was weak,

and that if anything was done on his account, it was done simply because a

good many things are done for the sake of the baby of the household. But

because all these concessions are made to him he does not cease to be a baby."

The weak are weak in-

1.Faith-see 14:22-23 HAST THOU FAITH? HAVE IT TO THYSELF BEFORE

GOD.

HAPPY IS HE THAT CODEMETH OT HIMSELF I THAT THIG

WHICH HE ALLOWETH. AD HE THAT DOUBTETH IS DAMED IF HE

EAT, BECAUSE HE EATETH OT OF FAITH:

FOR WHATSOEVER IS OT OF FAITH IS SI.

2. Knowledge-(1 COR 8:7) HOWBEIT THERE IS OT I EVERY MA THAT

KOWLEDGE: FOR SOME WITH COSCIECE OF THE IDOL UTO THIS

HOUR EAT IT AS A THIG OFFERED

UTO A IDOL; AD THEIR COSCIECE BEIG WEAK IS DEFILED.

3. Conscience-His conscience is overly sensitive, condemning him for things

Scripture

does not. (1 Cor. 8:7; 10, 12).

4. will-He is weak in his will because he can be influenced to do something

contrary to his con-science, or to act without becoming fully convinced

by Scripture that something is either right or wrong.

In this case, the weaker person acts on the example of the stronger

believer without biblical conviction and faith.

This violates his conscience, and so causes him to sin against the

Lord (1 Cor. 8:10).

. Michael P. Andrus First Evangelical Free Church of St. Louis County, Missouri

writes,

Those that are "weak in the faith"

Look again at verses 1 & 2: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing

judgment on disputable matters. {2} One man's faith allows him to eat

everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables." This

speaks of one whose "faith is weak," but the original Greek actually speaks of

one who is "weak in the faith." This man is having a doctrinal and theological

problem--he hasnt yet come to grips that with the fact that at the death of

Christ the believer was released from bondage to the Mosaic Law. Hes weak

in that his conscience still bothers him when he eats meat or fails to observe the

Sabbath or drinks certain beverages, etc. Hes weak in that he is still in slavery

to the shadows and hasnt experienced the glorious freedom which comes

through Jesus Christ. Hes weak in that he hasnt yet fully liberated himself

from a belief in the efficacy of works. He still thinks more of what he can do

for God than of what God has done for him. His general approach is, "If the

Bible hasnt specifically approved something, then its probably wrong."

Thats the weak brother.

DAVID HOKE, People struggle with different things. What is taboo and what is

not? Since becoming a Christian, I have heard of people who thought it sin for men

to have hair past their ears, long sideburns or beards. Some think that women who

wear slacks are wrong for doing so. Similarly, some think that women who wear

makeup are modern-day Jezebels identifying with the world. I heard a pastor tell of

a lady who came up to him after a service and asked him whether it was a sin to

wear makeup. She looked kind of white and chalky, like a reject from a Geritol

commercial. He said that he took one long look at her and said, "Go get some." In

her case, she had been taught that there was something sinful about wearing

makeup.

Those that are "strong in the faith"

On the other hand, there is the strong brother. His general approach is different: "If

the Bible hasnt specifically forbidden something, then its probably within my

rights to do it." He enjoys his freedom in Christ and doesnt find his conscience

inhibiting him in regard to many of the (quote) "things that dont matter." He

knows experientially what John 8:31,32 means, as Jesus says, "If you hold to my

teaching, you really are my disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth

will set you free." Thats the strong brother.

The curious thing here, and I want you to catch this, is that these labels have

largely been reversed in the conservative church today. The legalistic believer

who has a list of don'ts a mile long; who has appointed himself as the spiritual

watchdog of the church; who is the first to throw up his hands in holy terror if

he sees a fellow-believer smoking or drinking a beer; who automatically writes

someone off from leadership in the church if he or she has suffered a divorce,

no matter what the cause, actually considers himself the strong brother.

If we dont accomplish anything else this morning I hope we at least come to

realize that the one whose list of scruples and inhibitions is long and rigid is the

weak brother, while the one who refuses to add to the Ts list of dos and

don'ts is the strong brother.

If I may chase down a philosophical rabbit trail for a moment, I believe that a very

interesting thing has developed in the evangelical church over the past several

decades, and that is that quite a number of Christians tend to make the automatic

assumption that the conservative position is always the right position and the more

liberal position is always the wrong position. And they tend to forget that we

evangelicals are supposed to get our viewpoints out of the Bible, and it shouldnt

matter whether it seems liberal or conservative by popular evangelical standards.

"Let me use another example. About a year ago there was an older woman

attending our church for a few months whose name I never learned, but she had a

penchant for the KJV. One day she called me up to find out why I didnt preach

from the KJV. I told her it was because I didnt think it was as accurate a

translation as the IV or the ASB. Suddenly I got an earful about how the KJV is

the inspired Word of God and all these new-fangled Bibles are tools of Satan, and it

went down hill from there. Well, her position is certainly conservative, but its

terribly weak with the facts. I have a great appreciation for the beauty of the KJV,

but when history and grammar and textual criticism are taken into consideration,

there is simply no way the KJV can be held up as a superior translation. It simply

isnt so.

Friends, the only really strong position is the one that corresponds to truth, and I

for one am willing to stand on Gods Word even if it means that the whole of

fundamentalism and half of evangelicalism think Im a "liberal," or even if the

other half of evangelicals and all the liberals think Im a "knee-jerk conservative."

ot for dispute over opinions. There is good reason for disputes when the

issue is a matter of clear revelation and essential doctrine. But when it comes to

opinions it is folly to dispute. Is Bach better than Beethoven? This is a matter

of personal taste and has no place in Christian debate. Do not welcome the

weak brother or sister because you know they have weak ideas and you look

forward to the fun of tearing them to shreds and to torment them with your

liberty in Christ. The more mature Christian can be a real stinker in teasing

another Christian who is hung up on old ideas he was taught by some legalistic

group he grew up in.

writes, "The weak brother in the early church was the one who had been

regenerated by God's Spirit, but who had not as yet been freed from his

superstitions,

prejudices, theories, and legality." There are many Christians today who still have

the prejudices they grew up with, and have hangups of all kinds that come with

them into the church. We are not to despise them for these weaknesses, but accept

them as God does. God loves us all just as we are, but too much to leave us there.

That is to be our attitude as well.

Disputable matters are inevitable in any group, for we are a diverse people by

design, and not all made alike. All it takes is one person in a group to cause

disunity for unity calls for one hundred percent cooperation and agreement,

but only one can create disunity, and so disunity is more likely than unity in

any body of people.

HOKE, But by referring to some as weak, he is not putting them down. Some are

weak simply because they have not yet had the time and experience to mature. To be

weak is only embarrassing when you should be strong. We dont expect little babies

in the crib to be strong, but we do expect full-grown men to be strong, at least by

comparison to the little babe. Consequently, it is important for us to understand

that we are not all at the same level of maturity. Unfortunately, because we are not

all the same, this creates problems in our life together.

STEDMA

To accept him, of course, means that regardless of where you may struggle with

someone and about what you may struggle, you must realize that they are brothers

and sisters in the family of God, if they are Christians at all. You did not make them

part of the family -- the Lord did. Therefore, you are to accept them because they

are your brothers and sisters. And you are not to accept them with the idea of

immediately straightening them out in the areas in which they are weak. I think that

is a very necessary, practical admonition because many of us love to argue and

sometimes the first thing we want to do is straighten somebody out.

I remember years ago when, after preaching from this platform on a Sunday night,

a man came up to me and started talking in a rather roundabout way. He said, "Let

me ask you something. Do you believe that two Christians who love the Lord and

are led by the Holy Spirit will read a passage of Scripture and both come out

believing the same thing?" I said, "Yes, I think that sounds logical." "Well," he

said, "can you explain why, when I read the passage you preached on tonight, I

believe it teaches there will be no millennium, but when you read it, you believe

there is going to be one. What do you think of that?" Being young and aggressive I

said, "Well, I think it means that I believe the Bible and you do not." That

immediately precipitated an argument and, with several other people gathered

around, we went at it hammer and tongs for an hour or so. Afterwards, thinking it

through, I realized how wrong I was. I had immediately started arguing. I had to

write to that brother and tell him that I was sorry I had jumped on him like that. Of

course, he had jumped on me, too, but that was his problem, not mine. I had to

straighten out my problem, so I apologized to him and said, "I am sorry that I did

not recognize the parts where we agree before we got on to those things over which

we differ."

Paul wants us to understand that this is what we are to do. First of all, accept

people, let them know that you see them as a brother or a sister. Establish the

boundaries of your relationship by some gesture or word of acceptance so they do

not feel that you are attacking them immediately. The Greek here says not to accept

them in order to argue about your differences, or, as the ew English Bible puts it,

"without attempting to settle doubtful points." First, let there be a basic recognition

that you belong to one another.

It is also clear that he calls the "liberal party" strong in the faith, while the "narrow

party" is regarded as being weak in the faith.

Therefore, the mark of understanding truth is freedom; it is liberty. That is why

Paul calls the person who understands truth clearly one who is strong in the faith,

while those who do not understand it clearly are weak in the faith. They do not

understand the delivering character of truth. I think William Barclay in his

commentary on Romans has handled this well. He says:

Such a man is weak in the faith for two reasons:

(i) He has not yet discovered the meaning of Christian freedom; he is at heart still

a legalist; he sees Christianity as a thing of rules and regulations. His whole aim is to

govern his life by a series of laws and observances; he is indeed frightened of

Christian freedom and Christian liberty.

(ii) He has not yet liberated himself from a belief in the efficacy of works. In his

heart he believes that he can gain God's favor by doing certain things and

abstaining from doing others. Basically he is still trying to earn a right relationship

with God, and has not yet accepted the way of grace. He is still thinking of what he

can do for God more than of what God has done for him.

That is the problem here. It is the problem of a Christian who is not yet

understanding fully the freedom that Christ has brought him, who struggles with

these kinds of things, and who feels limited in his ability to indulge or to use some of

these things -- while others feel free to do so. One is strong in the faith; the other is

called weak in the faith. Every church has these groups.

We are not to exclude these people from our contacts with one another. We must not

form little cliques within the church that shut out people from social fellowship with

people who have different viewpoints. We must not think of our group as being set

free while this group over here is very narrow and we have nothing to do with them.

This is wrong, and Paul clearly says so. In fact, he implies that if any of the so-called

strong exclude weaker brothers, look down on them, treat them as though they are

second-class Christians, they have simply proved that they are just as weak in the

faith as the ones they have denied. Strength in the faith means more than

understanding truth. It means living in a loving way with those who are weak: The

truly strong in the faith will never put down those who are still struggling.

BARES

There were many Jews in Rome; and it is probable that no small part of the

church was composed of them. The ew Testament everywhere shows that

they were disposed to bind the Gentile converts to their own customs, and to

insist on the observance of the unique laws of Moses; see Act_15:1-2, etc.;

Gal_2:3-4. The subjects on which questions of this kind would be agitated

were, circumcision, days of fasting, the distinction of meats, etc. A part of these

only are discussed in this chapter. The views of the apostle in regard to

circumcision had been stated in Rom. 34. In this chapter he notices the

disputes which would be likely to arise on the following subjects;

(1) The use of meat, evidently referring to the question whether it was

lawful to eat the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; Rom_14:2.

(2) the distinctions and observances of the days of Jewish fastings, etc.,

Rom_14:5-6.

(3) the laws observed by the Jews in relation to animals as clean or unclean;

Rom_14:14.

It is probable that these are mere specimens adduced by the apostle to

settle principles of conduct in regard to the Gentiles, and to show to each

party how they ought to act in all such questions.

The apostles design here is to allay all these contentions by producing peace,

kindness, charity. This he does by the following considerations, namely:

(1) That we have no right to judge another man in this case, for he is the servant

of God; Rom_14:3-4.

(2) that whatever course is taken in these questions, it is done conscientiously, and

with a desire to glorify God. In such a case there should be kindness and charity;

Rom_14:6, etc.

(3) that we must stand at the judgment-seat of Christ, and give an account there;

and that we, therefore, should not usurp the function of judging; Rom_14:10-13.

(4) that there is really nothing unclean of itself; Rom_14:14.

(5) that religion consisted in more important matters than such questions;

Rom_14:17-18.

(6) that we should follow after the things of peace, etc.; Rom_14:19-23.

The principles of this chapter are applicable to all similar cases of difference of

opinion about rites and ceremonies, and unessential doctrines of religion; and we

shall see that if they were honestly applied, they would settle no small part of the

controversies in the religious world.

BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR, Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations.

Strong and weak

Here is a lesson

I. For those who are strong in the faith.

1. Not to provoke.

2. Nor despise those who are weak.

II. For those who are weak. Not to judge their stronger brethren.

III. For both.

1. To think and let think.

2. To give each other credit for sincerity. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The weak in the faith to be received, or the duty of mutual forbearance

1. Faith is not here used in the sense of confidence in Christ, but of the faith. The question was, did Christianity or did it not require abstinence from certain meats, and observance of certain fasts and festivals? The man who maintained that it did is here held to be weak in the faith. He had but faintly grasped the breadth of Christs

redeeming work; while he who had attained superior light, and had been set free from all such scruples, was therefore strong in the faith.

2. Now, the apostle assumes that the latter was right. Had he been wrong, there could have been no discussion, and there could be no just ground for a moments toleration of him. But he was not wrong (Rom_14:14). The Mosaic law on these subjects had been done away in Christ (Col_2:16-17).

3. The question was whether the man who conscientiously abstained and observed might, or might not, be received into the Church. He was certainly not required in order to salvation to disregard the Jewish festivals, nor to eat unclean meats. But it never could be tolerated that he should set up his scrupulous conscience as the normal standard of Christian faith (Gal_2:3-5; Gal 4:9-11; Gal 5:1-4). No one must bind burdens upon men which the Lord had not bound. Hence the weak in faith is to be received, but not to judgings or condemnations of opinions. If he is content to enjoy the advantages of fellowship with you, without insisting that you are all wrong, let him be received; but if his object is to promote contention, etc., then he has no rightful place amongst you.

I. Let not the strong in the faith despise them that are weak, for their convictions rest ultimately upon Divine revelation. The law of Moses was of Divine authority, and, although done away in Christ, was subject to it. Therefore it was not surprising if some of the Jewish converts still felt insuperable objections to its abandonment. It was a matter of conscience, and the man who respects his conscience deserves respect, even when prejudiced and wrong (Rom_14:6). The strong, therefore, must not put a stumbling-block in their brothers way. This may be done

1. By a contempt of his scruples. The disposition to sneer at his stupid weakness will not convince him that he is either stupid or weak, but will rather drive him utterly away from those who tolerate such an ungenerous spirit, and perhaps to apostasy. Now, though the strong had a perfect right to disregard the distinctions of meats, he had no right to imperil the salvation of any one for whom Christ died (Rom_14:17). The weak are not required to abstain from meats, but you are not bound to eat them (1Co_8:13).

2. By example or persuasion. It was quite lawful for the strong to employ argument in order to convince the weak that he misapprehended the character and purpose of Christianity: but it was not lawful for him to laugh at his scruples, and to assure him, without adducing proof, that there could really be no harm in eating, etc. That might be quite true for him, but it would not be true for his weak brother. If this man presumed to eat the meat, or to disregard the day, while his scruples remained, his own conscience would accuse him of unfaithfulness. Thank God for thy liberty (Rom_14:22); but use it lawfully (Gal_5:13; 1Pe_2:16; 1Co_8:9).

II. The weak in the faith are not to judge or condemn the strong in the faith, the thing to which they are always predisposed. Incapable of grasping comprehensive principles, that, e.g., of Christian love, they feel to require a multitude of minute prescriptions. Days and meats and dress must all be fixed by enactment. And so being most punctiliously conscientious themselves, are ready to condemn brethren who are not equally scrupulous. Admit them into the Church by all means, says the apostle; but they must lay aside this censorious spirit. For it is not suffered them to usurp the place of the great Supreme. These matters are in themselves morally indifferent (Rom_14:14; 1Ti_4:4). Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and act upon his own convictions. Your judgment is not binding upon any conscience but your own. As to all other matters there

must be mutual forbearance and charity. Yet it is for each one to see

1. That he is loyally and earnestly devoted to the service of his Lord. Whether strong or weak his object must be to approve himself unto the Lord in everything, and for the Lords sake to promote the comfort and perfection of all his brethren.

2. That conscience is not offended. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth in his own practice. Where there is doubt, respect that doubt. Seek that your conscience may be well informed. (W. Tyson.)

The treatment of the weak

Weak Christians have infirmities, but infirmity supposes life; and we must not despise them in heart, word, or carriage. We must rather deny ourselves than offend them. We must support thembear them as pillars bear the house, as the shoulders the burden, as the wall the vine, as parents their children, as the oak the ivy; and this because

1. They are brethren. Are they not of the same body? Shall the hand cut off the little finger because it is not as large as the thumb? Do men throw away their corn because it comes into the barn with chaff?

II. They are weak. Bear with them out of pity. In a family, if one of the little ones be sick, all the larger children are ready to attend it, which they need not do if it were well.

III. Christ does so. Bear ye one anothers burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christthe law of

1. His command.

2. His example. He takes special care of the lambs, will not quench the smoking flax, and is touched with a feeling of our infirmities. (Philip Henry.)

The duty of forbearance in matters of opinion

Differences of opinion

I. Must necessarily arise even among Christians, out of

1. Human ignorance.

2. The different constitution of the mind.

II. In trivial matters indicate weakness of faith in those who are rigidly scrupulous. They do not understand the spirituality and liberty of the gospel.

III. Should be maintained in the spirit of love.

1. The strong may not despise the weak.

2. The weak and scrupulous may not judge the strong.

IV. Are of infinitely less importance than Christian brotherhood. He whom God has received must be

1. Respected.

2. Treated as a brother beloved. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Religious toleration

The argument for this is founded on

I. The nature and condition of man. He is imperfect, and therefore should also be tolerant. There is nothing more universal than ignorance, and hence there should be no virtue more universal than toleration. The facility with which we all absorb error and fall into prejudices, should make us always ready to tolerate many shades of religious opinion. It is folly to demand a unity of belief in a world where there is no one wise but God, and no one good except God. Some of the best men have been the victims of great errors. All intolerance is based upon egotism. It proceeds from the assumption that you have reached the ideal. The dreadful Popish persecutions all originated in a human egotism that cried, I have found it! They had become the exponents of God. Whereas now history shows that in all cases the persons exiled or put to death held a better creed at the time than those who forced upon them the bitter fate.

II. In the fact that the ideas over which most blood has been shed have subsequently been proven either useless or false. But one might have premised that the most intolerance would always be found gathered about the least valuable doctrine, because the most valuable doctrines are always so evident that no thumb-screw or faggot is ever needed to make the lips whisper assent. No man has ever been put to death for heresy regarding the Sermon on the Mount. But when a church comes along with its legitimacy, its Five Points, its Prayer Book, or its Infant Baptism, then comes the demand for the rack and the stake to make up in terrorism what is wanting in evidence. When witnesses were wanting, the high priests rent their clothes. If God has so fashioned the human mind that all its myriad forms can agree upon doctrines that are most vital; and if, as a fact, persecution has always attached itself to the small, then we would seem to have the curse of God visibly revealed against intolerance. (D. Swing.)

Toleration

A Quaker, after listening to Whitefields preaching, came up to him and said, Friend George, I am as thou art. I am for bringing all to the life and power of the everlasting God; and therefore if thou wilt not quarrel with me about my hat, I will not quarrel with thee about thy gown. (J. R. Andrews.)

Toleration: its value

Sailer, afterwards Bishop of Regensburg, could be identified with no party, and was hated by each. Napoleon prevented his promotion at one time by assuring the king he was a mere hanger-on to the Roman court; the Pope refused it at another because he suspected his attachment to the Church He was one of the mildest and most tolerant of menmild to excess. It is told that having preached one morning near Salzburg, the parish clergyman rose up and said he would preach himself in the afternoon, as Sailer had made the doors of heaven too wide. You are excellent at bandages, said one of his friends, but a bad operator. Very possibly, he replied; in my life I have seen more wounds healed by a good bandage than by a knife. (Dr. Stephenson.)

Unity to be maintained in spite of differences of opinion

I. How it is imperilled.

1. By forcing our own opinions on others.

2. By overestimating our own practice.

II. How it may be promoted.

1. By forbearance (Rom_14:3).

2. By humility (Rom_14:4).

3. By aiming at personal conviction (Rom_14:5).

4. By keeping in view the glory of God (Rom_14:6).

III. Whereon it rests.

1. The common assurance that we serve one Lord.

2. That we are all redeemed by Him.

IV. What it requires.

1. That we avoid all unbrotherly conduct.

2. That we all submit to God.

3. That we remember our final account. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Religious disputations

This chapter is written to dissuade men from acting the part of religious critics. It cannot be said that men are indifferent to religion in other folks. It is only to religion in themselves that they are comparatively indifferent. Men are so accustomed to criticise each others church service, etc., that they lose the very spirit of religion. The apostle dissuades everybody from it. A little spring comes out from the side of a mountain, pure and cool. Two men are determined that that spring shall be kept perfectly pure and drinkable. One wants it to be done in one way, and the other in another way; and they are so zealous to keep the spring pure that they get to quarrelling about it, and tramp through it, and make it muddy. They defile it in their very zeal to keep it pure; and the water flows down turbid and unfit to drink. Now, men are so determined to glorify God that they act like the devil. They are so determined that charity shall prevail that they slay men. They are so determined that a kind spirit shall exist that they will not have a word to say to a man who does not believe in their catechism. They are so determined that the world shall be generous that they stir up all manner of corrupting appetites and passions. They condemn their fellow-men, saying, Well, they are not orthodox. They are not true believers. They do not belong to the true Church. There are no covenants for them. So, under one pretence and another, the great Christian brotherhood, through the ages past, has been turmoiled and distracted; and the world has seen the spectacle of anything but what God meant to establish in the world. The Church by which He meant to make known His manifold wisdom, has made manifest narrowness, sectarianism, selfishness, unjust partialities, and all manner of irritable jealousies. It has not made manifest the beauty of God, the sweetness of Christ Jesus, nor the love of the Spirit. It is a fact which I think can be stated without fear of contradiction, that the general aspect of religion, as presented by churches throughout Christendom, is not winning and

attractive, and that the beauty of holiness, of which the Scriptures speak, has not yet blossomed out in the world. (H. W. Beecher.)

Practical godliness better rectifies the judgment than doubtful disputations

1. The weak one is

(1) Not one that is weak and sick to death, erring in the foundation of faithone who doth not hold the Head (Col_2:19), who denieth the Lord that bought him (2Pe_2:1; 2Jn_1:10).

(2) Nor one who is sick about questions (1Ti_1:4; 1Ti 5:13; 2Ti_2:13).

(3) But one who, though he hath embraced the Saviour, yet is not of a mature judgment, clear enough about the abolition of ceremonial observations, things [which] he judgeth ought to be forborne or done.

2. Charity is enjoined towards such. Take them to you, receive them into your houses (Rom_12:13; Luk_5:29). When they fly for their religion and lives, supply their wants, though not just of your opinion. Do not force them to practise what they cannot freely do, but receive them into your arms, love and converse, that you may instruct them and win them into your communion. Let not little differences cause the greatest distances (Rom_14:3).

3. The limitation of this exception. Not to doubtful disputations.

I. Disputations are not easily judged of by such as are weak in faith. This is evident from the first dispute that ever was in the world.

1. By this first dispute with the serpent, our first parents were foiled when in uprightness and strength of the image of God. But now sinful man is in a much more dark and doleful state. For

(1) He cannot form an idea of anything as it is in itself (1Co_8:2; 2Co_3:5).

(2) His judgment, therefore, must needs be dubious or wrong whereby he is to compare things that differ or agree (Hos_9:7; Isa_5:20; Heb_5:14).

(3) His conclusions, therefore, must needs be distorted from these premisses; and the errors in the first and second concoction are not corrected and amended by the third. He who cannot make one straight step, can never take three together.

2. As we are lame in our feet by our naturals, so even those who by the light of the gospel and grace are brought over to better understanding, yet by virtue of the old craziness they are not thoroughly illuminated and refined. The very apostles themselves were plainly told by our Saviour of His sufferings and resurrection, yet they understood none of these things (Luk_18:33-34; Luk_24:45). Paul says, We know but in part (1Co_13:12). We see but one side of the globe. These weak Jews were zealous for their ceremonies; the Gentiles, as hot for theirs; let no man think himself infallible, for these were all mistaken.

3. Nothing so convulseth mens reason as interest.

II. The practice of holy duties is the ready way to have our minds enlightened in the knowledge of principles. These practical duties

1. Give light (Joh_3:21). The very entrance into the command giveth light

(Psa_119:130); the door is a window to him that hath a weak sight.

2. Advance light. Every step a man takes he goeth into a new horizon, and gets a further prospect into truth.

3. Keep from error or help out of it. Communion with the saints, e.g., as in a team if one horse lash out of the way, if the others hold their course, they will draw the former to the right path. If any man will do this will of God, he shall know of the doctrine (Psa_35:14).

III. Christian charity and reception will sooner win weak ones to the truth than rigid arguments.

1. Opposition breeds oppositions. When men dispute, they jostle for the way, and so one or both must needs leave the path of truth and peace. The saw of contention reciprocated, with its keen teeth eateth up both truth and love; for such contentions are rather for victory than truth.

2. Loving converse taketh off those prejudices which hinder mens minds from a true knowledge of others principles and practices.

3. Sincere love and converse breed a good opinion of persons who differ from us. They can taste humility, meekness, and kindness, better than the more speculative principles of religion. (T. Woodcock, A.M.)

Unwise disputations

Such facts remind us of an incident that occurred on the south-eastern coast. A noble ship with its crew and passengers was in awful peril, having struck on a sunken rock. Having been observed by those on shore, the lifeboat was ran down to the beach. Everything was in readiness when a most unseemly quarrel arose. There were two rival crews, each of which claimed the right to man the boat, and to receive any remuneration that might be earned by pulling out to the wreck. Neither crew would give way to the other, and so the boat was not launched, and while those men were wrangling with each other the ship and all on board her went under the raging billows. That was a sad scene. But in the eyes of Heaven it must be a still sadder spectacle to see the Church wasting her time and energies in disputing about points of doctrine and discipline, and yet leaving vast multitudes of men to perish in their sin and misery and despair. (Christian Journal.)

Christian forbearance

Let each receive every other in his individuality, and that not to doubtful disputations. We are not to attempt to shape men to that which we think they ought to be in a hard and systematic manner. In churches we see exhibited certain styles of character. The lines have been laid down with accuracy. The members are to believe such and such things, and they are to observe such and such bounds and theological lines, or else they are like a plant that is in a pot that is too small for its roots, and they are dwarfs all the rest of their lives. There are a few Christians (I would to God there were more) in whom the kingdom of God is like an oak or cedar of Lebanon; but there are many who are called Christians in whom the kingdom of God is no bigger than a thimble. There are men who have a few catechetical ideas, who are orthodox, and who make no mistakes in

theology; but woe be to the man who does not make any mistakes. Count the sands of the sea, if you can, without misreckoning. A man that has a hundred ducats or dollars may count them and make no mistake; but multiply them by millions, and then can he count them without any mistake? I am sorry for a man who does not make mistakes. If you have a huge bucket, and a pint of water in it, you will never make the mistake of spilling the water; but if a man is carrying a huge bucket full of water he will be certain to spill it. (H. W. Beecher.)

Disputations to be avoided

John Wesley, a man whose bitterest enemy could not fairly accuse him of indifference to the doctrines and faith once delivered to the saints, wrote thus liberally and large-heartedly to a correspondent: Men may die without any opinions, and yet be carried into Abrahams bosom; but if we be without love, what will knowledge avail? I will not quarrel with you about opinions. Only see that your heart be right toward God, and that you know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, and love your neighbours, and walk as your Master walked, and I ask no more. I am sick of opinions. Give me a good and substantial religion, a humble, gentle love of God and man.

Christian contention

God grant that we may contend with other churches, as the vine with the olive, which of us shall bear the best fruit; but not, as the brier with the thistle, which of us will be most unprofitable! (Lord Bacon.)

Contagious contention

As a little spark many times setteth a whole house on fire; even so a contentious and froward person, of a little matter of nought, maketh much debate and division among lovers and friends. As we see one coal kindle another, and wood to be apt matter to make a fire; so those that are disposed to contention and brawling are apt to kindle strife. (Cawdray.)

Test of controversy

A cobbler at Leyden, who used to attend the public disputations held at the academy, was once asked if he understood Latin. No, replied the mechanic; but I know who is wrong in the argument. How? replied his friend. Why, by seeing who is angry first.

Christian liberty:In such points as may be held diversely by diverse persons, I would not take any mans liberty from him; and I humbly beseech all men that they would not take mine from me. (Abp. Bramhall.)

EBC, CHRISTIAN DUTY: MUTUAL TENDERNESS AND TOLERANCE: THE SACREDNESS OF EXAMPLE

BUT him who is weak-we might almost render, him who suffers from weakness, in his

faith (in the sense here not of creed, a meaning of rare in St. Paul, but of reliance

on his Lord; reliance not only for justification but, in this case, for holy liberty), welcome

into fellowship-not for criticisms of his scruples, of his , the anxious internal debates of conscience. One man believes, has faith, issuing in a conviction of liberty, in such a mode and degree as to eat all kinds of food; but the man in weakness eats vegetables only; an extreme case, but doubtless not uncommon, where a convert, tired out by his own scruples between food and food, cut the knot by rejecting flesh meat altogether. The eater-let him not despise the non-eater; while the non-eater-let him not judge the eater: for our God welcomed him to fellowship, when he came to the feet of His Son for acceptance. You-who are you, thus judging Anothers domestic? To his own Lord, his own Master. he stands, in approval, -or, if that must be, falls under displeasure; but he shall be upheld in approval; for able is that Lord to set him so, to bid him "stand," under His sanctioning smile. One man distinguishes day above day; while another distinguishes every day; a phrase paradoxical but intelligible; it describes the thought of the man who, less anxious than his neighbour about stated "holy days," still aims not to "level down" but to "level up" his use of time; to count every day "holy," equally dedicated to the will and work of God. Let each be quite assured in his own mind; using the thinking power given him by his Master, let him reverently work the question out, and then live up to his ascertained convictions, while (this is intimated by the emphatic "his own mind") he respects the convictions of his neighbour. The man who "minds" the day, the "holy day" in question, in any given instance, to the Lord he "minds" it; (and the man who "minds" not the day, to the Lord he does not "mind" it); both parties, as Christians, in their convictions and their practice, stand related and responsible, directly and primarily to the Lord; that fact must always govern and qualify their mutual judgments. And the eater, the man who takes food indifferently without scruple, to the Lord he eats, for he gives thanks at his meal to God; and the non-eater, to the Lord he does not eat the scrupled food, and gives thanks to God for that of which his conscience allows him to partake.

The connection of the paragraph just traversed with what went before it is suggestive and instructive. There is a close connection between the two; it is marked expressly by the

"but" () of ver. 1 (Rom_14:1), a link strangely missed in the Authorised Version. The "but" indicates a difference of thought, however slight, between the two passages. And the differenced as we read it, is this. The close of the thirteenth chapter has gone all in the direction of Christian wakefulness, decision, and the battlefield of conquering faith. The Roman convert, roused by its trumpet strain, will be eager to be up and doing, against the enemy and for his Lord, armed from head to foot with Christ. He will bend his whole purpose upon a life of open and active holiness. He will be filled with a new sense at once of the seriousness and of the liberty of the Gospel. But then some "weak brother" will cross his path. It will be some recent convert, perhaps from Judaism itself, perhaps an ex-pagan, but influenced by the Jewish ideas so prevalent at the time in many Roman circles. This Christian, not untrustful, at least in theory, of the Lord alone for pardon and acceptance, is, however, quite full of scruples which, to the man fully "armed with Christ," may seem, and do seem, lamentably morbid, really serious mistakes and hindrances. The "weak brother" Spends much time in studying the traditional rules of fast and feast, and the code of permitted food. He is sure that the God who has accepted him will hide His face from him if he lets the new moon pass like a common day; or if the Sabbath is not kept by the rule, not of Scripture, but of the Rabbis. Every social meal gives him painful and frequent occasion for troubling himself, and others; he takes refuge perhaps in an anxious vegetarianism, in despair of otherwise keeping undefiled. And inevitably such scruples do not terminate in themselves. They infect the mans whole tone of thinking and action. He questions and discusses everything, with himself,

if not with others. He is on the way to let his view of acceptance in Christ grow fainter and more confused. He walks, he lives; but he moves like a man chained, and in a prison.

Such a case as this would be a sore temptation to the "strong" Christian. He would be greatly inclined, of himself, first to make a vigorous protest, and then, if the difficulty proved obstinate, to think hard thoughts of his narrow-minded friend; to doubt his right to the Christian name at all; to reproach him, or (worst of all) to satirise him. Meanwhile the "weak" Christian would have his harsh thoughts too. He would not, by any means for certain, show as much meekness as "weakness." He would let his neighbour see, in one way or other, that he thought him little better than a worldling, who made Christ an excuse for personal self-indulgence.

How does the Apostle meet the trying case, which must have crossed his own path so often, and sometimes in the form of a bitter opposition from those who were "suffering from weakness in their faith"? It is quite plain that his own convictions lay with "the strong," so far as principle was concerned. He "knew that nothing was unclean" (Rom_14:14). He knew that the Lord was not grieved, but pleased, by the temperate and thankful use, untroubled by morbid fears, of His natural bounties. He knew that the Jewish festival system had found its goal and end in the perpetual "let us keep the feast" (1Co_5:3) of the true believers happy and hallowed life. And accordingly he does, in

passing, rebuke "the weak" for their harsh criticisms () of "the strong." But then, he throws all the more weight, the main weight, on his rebukes and warnings to "the strong." Their principle might be right on this great detail. But this left untouched the yet more stringent overruling principle, to "walk in love"; to take part against themselves; to live in this matter, as in everything else, for others. They were not to be at all ashamed of their special principles. But they were to be deeply ashamed of one hours unloving conduct. They were to be quietly convinced, in respect of private judgment. They were to be more than tolerant-they were to be loving-in respect of common life in the Lord.

Their "strength" in Christ was never to be ungentle; never to be "used like a giants." It was to be shown, first and most, by patience. It was to take the form of the calm, strong readiness to understand anothers point of view. It was to appear as reverence for anothers conscience, even when the conscience went astray for want of better light.

Let us take this apostolic principle out into modern religious life. There are times when we shall be specially bound to put it carefully in relation to other principles, of course. When St. Paul, some months earlier, wrote to Galatia, and had to deal with an error which darkened the whole truth of the sinners way to God as it lies straight through Christ, he did not say, "Let every man be quite assured in his own mind." He said (Rom_1:8) "If an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel, which is not another, let him be anathema." The question there was, Is Christ all, or is He not? Is faith all, or is it not, for our laying hold of Him? Even in Galatia, he warned the converts of the miserable and fatal mistake of "biting and devouring one another". (Gal_5:15) But he adjured them not to wreck their peace with God upon a fundamental error. Here, at Rome, the question was different; it was secondary. It concerned certain details of Christian practice. Was an outworn and exaggerated ceremonialism a part of the will of God, in the justified believers life? It was not so, as a fact. Yet it was a matter on which the Lord, by His Apostle, rather counselled than commanded. It was not of the foundation. And the always overruling law for the discussion was-the tolerance born of love. Let us in our day remember this, whether our inmost sympathies are with "the strong" or with "the weak." In Jesus Christ, it is possible to realise the ideal of this paragraph even in our divided Christendom. It is possible to be convinced, yet sympathetic. It is possible to see the Lord for ourselves with glorious clearness, yet to understand the practical difficulties felt by

others, and to love, and to respect, where there are even great divergences. No man works more for a final spiritual consensus than he who, in Christ, so lives.

Incidentally meantime, the Apostle, in this passage which so curbs "the strong," lets fall maxims which forever protect all that is good and true in that well-worn and often misused phrase, "the right of private judgment." No spiritual despot, no claimant to be the autocratic director of a conscience, could have written those words, "Let every man be quite certain in his own mind"; "Who art thou that judgest Anothers domestic?" Such sentences assert not the right so much as the duty, for the individual Christian, of a reverent "thinking for himself." They maintain a true and noble individualism. And there is a special need just now in the Church to remember, in its place, the value of Christian individualism. The idea of the community, the society, is just now so vastly prevalent (doubtless not without the providence of God) in human life, and also in the Church, that an assertion of the individual, which was once disproportionate, is now often necessary, lest the social idea in its turn should be exaggerated into a dangerous mistake. Coherence, mutuality, the truth of the Body and the Members; all this, in its place, is not only important, but divine. The individual must inevitably lose where individualism is his whole idea. But it is ill for the community, above all for the Church, where in the total the individual tends really to be merged and lost. Alas for the Church where the Church tries to take the individuals place in the knowledge of God, in the love of Christ, in the power of the Spirit. The religious Community must indeed inevitably lose where religious communism is its whole idea. It can be perfectly strong only where individual consciences are tender and enlightened; where individual souls personally know God in Christ; where individual wills are ready, if the Lord call, to stand alone for known truth even against the religious Society; -if there also the individualism is not self-will, but Christian personal responsibility; if the man "thinks for himself" on his knees; if he reverences the individualism of others, and the relations of each to all.

The individualism of Rom_14:1-23, asserted in an argument full of the deepest secrets of cohesion, is the holy and healthful thing it is because it is Christian. It is developed not by the assertion of self, but by individual communion with Christ.

Now he goes on to further and still fuller statements in the same direction.

For none of us to himself lives, and none of us to himself dies. How, and wherefore? Is it merely that "we" live lives always, necessarily related to one another? He has this in his heart indeed. But he reaches it through the greater, deeper, antecedent truth of our relation to the Lord. The Christian is related to his brother Christian through Christ, not to Christ through his brother, or through the common Organism in which the brethren are "each others limbs." "To the Lord," with absolute directness, with a perfect and wonderful immediateness, each individual Christian is first related. His life and his death are "to others," but through him. The Masters claim is eternally first; for it is based direct upon the redeeming work in which He bought us for Himself.

For whether we live, to the Lord we live; and whether we be dead, to the Lord we are dead; in the state of the departed, as before, "relation stands." Alike, therefore, whether we be dead, or whether we live, the Lords we are; His property, bound first and in everything to His possession. For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He might become Lord of us both dead and living.

Here is the profound truth seen already in earlier passages in the Epistle. We have had it reasoned out, above all in the sixth chapter, in its revelation of the way of Holiness, that our only possible right relations with the Lord are clasped and governed by the fact that to Him we rightly and everlastingly belong. There, however, the thought was more of our

surrender under his rights. Here it is of the mighty antecedent fact, under which our most absolute surrender is nothing more than the recognition of His indefeasible claim. What the Apostle says here, in this wonderful p