Romans 14

CHAPTER XIV

The Strong Christian and the Weak (Adiaphora), 14:1–15:13

Justification by faith enables the Christian to take the correct view of all adiaphora. It leads him to treat the overscrupulous and thus weak brother with helpful forbearance; and it leads the weak brother to refrain from judging harshly the well-informed stronger brother. Through this effect justification by faith creates harmony and unity among believers. The value of this section for all time is thus apparent.

In connection with previous sections of this epistle we have noted the fruitlessness of efforts to discover special local reasons in the Roman congregation that prompted Paul to write those sections and to write them as he did. This final section differs in this respect from the rest of the epistle—it treats of difficulties that were actually found in Rome, friction between strong and weak members that was induced by the peculiar scrupulosity of the latter. Paul treats the matter at length by applying the principles that lie in the doctrine of justification by faith. We see that he is adequately informed on the difficulties themselves, for he states just what they are. Although he had never been in Rome, the personal greetings he sends in chapter 16, reveal how many friends who were personally known to him he had at Rome who were channels a plenty for abundant knowledge of things Roman.

It is worth noting that Paul found this the only local topic that called for a special treatment. The congregation at Rome was thus free from disturbance beyond the slight friction indicated. That was a blessed condition, indeed. The congregation in Ephesus is comparable. To this church Paul also writes on a great doctrinal subject and adds not a single local matter. The difficulties in regard to scrupulosity were slight in Rome as we gather from the tone of Paul’s discussion.

He treats the general subject rather than any painfulness of friction that had developed. For one thing, we get no hint of anything resembling party divisions. Overly scrupulous members may appear in any congregation. Paul seems to welcome a presentation of the general subject and uses the mild occurrence at Rome as an opportunity for treating it with quiet instruction.

The effort to attribute the scrupulosity here discussed to the Jewish Christians in Rome is unsatisfactory. The most rigorous Jews never forbade the use of meat and of wine as such but only of meat and of wine that had been prepared by pagan hands. They freely used kosher meat and wine made by Jews. There were a few pagan vegetarians, but none of them abstained from the use of wine. The manner in which Paul speaks of esteeming days bars out Judaistic pretensions regarding the Sabbath and Jewish festivals, contentions such as those referred to in Col. 2:16. In fact, the scrupulous Christians we meet here were not legalistic, not Judaizers, not men who confused law and gospel.

Against such men Paul always used his heaviest artillery for the reason that these were the most dangerous enemies of the church. This type of fanatic was also arrogant to a degree; no rebuke against arrogance appears in Paul’s words. Outside sources are not helpful for determining anything about these weak brethren. What Paul says of them is all that we know and, in fact, is quite enough.

They were weak because they did not yet make the full deductions from the gospel of justification by faith. In their effort to be scrupulous their weakness made them overly scrupulous in several directions. This caused a double danger: other Christians might grow impatient with them, and they themselves might start to judge the others. Harmony and unity would be disturbed. Paul shows what a mistake this would be. He does not, however, fall into the error of making the weakness of the weak the criterion and principle for the church.

Paul refuses to reduce the strong to the level of the weak. The weak ought to grow strong. The way to make them strong is not to offend them, nor to contend with them in debate; but to show them forbearance and loving consideration, thereby enabling the weak to build up their strength. As far as a difference between Jewish and Gentile Christians played into the question, Christ was the minister of both for hope, joy, and peace in believing and in the power of the Spirit. The entire section breathes the finest spirit of true Christian ethics in its application to congregational life. All cannot at once rise to full strength; loving helpfulness will enable the weak to gain the strength they need and in the meanwhile shield them from harm.

Romans 14:1

1 Some find a transitional thought in 13:14. Paul often moves from one subject to another by means of a transition; but he often simply turns from one subject to the next without a bridge of thought. That is the case here. Now (transitional δέ) him who continues to be weak as to the faith keep receiving unto yourselves, not (however) for disputations on opinions.

The new subject is at once broached: what to do with a fellow Christian who is still in a weak condition in regard to the faith (dative of relation). The substantivized participle brings out the condition of this person even better than the adjective would; this condition is also not viewed as being fixed or permanent. Here “the faith” might mean “his faith,” but we attain a more adequate sense when we understand it is a reference to the objective Christian faith. It is in the apprehension of what Christian doctrine involves in regard to food, observance of days, etc., that the weakness here referred to consists and not in the small degree of strength of confidence in the heart.

“Keep receiving to yourselves,” or, “keep taking to yourselves” (middle), is iterative and can thus scarcely refer to one who is already a member of the Roman congregation; for to all such the fellowship of the congregation was open from the very beginning of their membership, and their being weak or strong made no difference. “Take to yourselves” bids the entire congregation receive into membership anyone who, on coming to them, may prove still to be weak as to the faith. The iterative present is used to indicate any time that such a case may present itself. The weak person is not to be put off until he becomes strong; the best place to become strong is in the fellowship of the strong. One gathers that such cases occurred in Rome occasionally, weak Christians moved to the capital city and presented themselves for membership. We ought not to read too much into Paul’s words. When he says, “keep taking them to yourselves,” he does not mean that this had not been done but rather that it had been, and that it was entirely right and proper that the congregation should continue in this proper course.

“Not for disputation on opinions” adds a restriction. Zeal for removing the weakness of such a new member is not to take this course, which, instead of gaining its laudable end, would in most cases only defeat itself. Διακρίσεις might be derived from διακρίνειν, “to distinguish” or examine, or from διακρίνεσθαι, “to doubt” or waver between two opinions, “to dispute,” put one opinion against another. The context must decide; here it favors the latter meaning. The genetive διαλογισμῶν is objective, “on thoughts” or “on opinions.” This word is used in the New Testament with reference to wrong or mistaken notions. So the sense is: receive such a Christian, but not in order to start disputes with him on the faulty notions that cause his weakness. Arguing with him is not the best means for removing another person’s weakness.

The idea is not that the strong and intelligent are never to voice their proper convictions; Paul himself does this in v. 14, although he does not do so because he is disputing. The strong, too, need to be confirmed and upheld lest they themselves become uncertain and weak. The problem of the strong and the weak is a delicate problem. It would be quite simple if it were merely a case of true and false, right and wrong; it is not such a case and must not be treated as such. To do so would be worse than weakness on the part of the strong. Argument as a means to an end has its decided limitations.

Romans 14:2

2 Paul states the kind of weakness he has in mind. The one has the confidence to eat everything (in the way of food); the other who is weak eats vegetables (only). Paul merely individualizes. To speak of “a party of vegetarians in the Roman congregation” is exaggeration. L. presents the available data on abstinence from meat and from wine found scattered in the early literature, and also he comes to the conclusion that the weakness which Paul discusses cannot be traced to any existing sect or even to any special influence, either pagan or Jewish. In addition one must note that the excerpts quotel by L. and others are in good part dated after Paul’s time.

The most we can say is that a few believers felt that, in view of the excesses in gluttonous feasting and drunkenness found all around them in the pagan world, it was best to refrain from eating or drinking wine in order to keep themselves safe in holy living. They were not legalists who had false doctrinal views, made no demands on others, started no so-called reforms, segregated themselves into no party. If they had done so, Paul would have treated them in a different fashion. They were actually only weak, and only a few of them were found in Rome.

In πιστεύει there lies the conviction and the confidence which prompt one to corresponding action; the aorist φαγεῖν is constative. Ὅςμέν is demonstrative, “the one,” and is followed by ὁδέ (not ὅς) because the participle is to be substantivized, “the other who,” etc. 1 Tim. 4:4: “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.” Now there is no commandment that one must eat or must use this and that! Everyone is free in this respect, and he may even have most excellent reasons for avoiding certain food and certain drink—medical advice for instance. This is the field of the adiaphora, liberty to use or not to use, although we should always have adequate reasons for either. The weakness consists in undue timidity, overscrupulosity.

Romans 14:3

3 Paul warns against the two dangers that are apt to arise when the strong and the weak come into personal contact. In the congregation this would happen when the agape is being observed. He who eats let him not set at nought him who does not eat; and he who does not eat let him not judge him who eats.

Paul speaks only of individuals and not of clashing parties. The present imperatives are designed for individual cases such as may occur now and then. The one who eats any kind of food may aim a thrust at the one who eats no meat, regard him as nothing, mock or despise him. Such conduct would be a grave sin against brotherly love. This is the very thing the strong believer is liable to do to the weaker believer. It may be due to thoughtlessness, it is often due to something worse.

On the other hand, he who is weak and narrow in his views of gospel liberty may judge the other who knows what that liberty is and uses it freely. Paul does not say κατακρίνειν, “condemn,” but κρίνειν, judge, for only passing some criticism or other is meant. The thought that either provokes the other is not included; for that would be only an aggravation. Paul keeps to the main point and omits additions. The fault of the weak would be as great as the fault of the strong, again a sin against brotherly love.

These are the imminent dangers to be avoided. This is not the way in which the strong and the weak should react. Sad disruption would be the result. Both the strong and the weak would become worse than weak. When the one seeks to harm the other, each would sadly harm also himself.

Paul deals first with the weak, who would voice himself strongly in criticism against the strong: for God did receive him for himself as Paul just bade all the strong to receive the weak. Here it again appears that the weak person is an individual believer who, on coming to Rome, has sought admission into the congregation. He has joined the congregation in order to be one of God’s people, has joined them as people whom God has received and taken for his own (we use the perfect, the Greek uses the aorist). Will this weak Christian pass judgment on the essentials which God requires for receiving people and constituting them a Christian congregation? will he do that after he himself has joined such a congregation? yea, after that congregation is bidden by Paul to receive one who is still as weak as this critic is? Does he require more than God requires? Will he not have to answer to God for that? answer as well as the congregation if it, because of his weakness, had not received him? Also, is this critic’s weakness to establish the standard for the strength to which the church should rise?

Romans 14:4

4 But Paul is not through. Thou, who art thou that judgest another’s household servant? To his own lord (alone) he stands or falls. But he will be made to stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

This is sharp rebuke. It is presumptuous when a weak brother sets himself up as if he were the one who is really strong, yea, as if he were the real master in the Lord’s house. Even the beginning of such an attitude must be corrected without mincing of words. Paul is just as alive to the opposite danger and also corrects that. Yet the paradox remains: the weak often do more harm in the church than the strong.

The term οἰκέτης is well chosen: a servant in the master’s own house, belonging to his immediate family, thus in personal contact with his master. Whose business is it to pass any kind of judgment, either favorable or unfavorable, upon such a servant? Certainly the master’s alone. “To his own Lord, (dativus commodi), to him alone, he stands or falls,” stands as being approved in his position, or falls by losing his position. We see no reason for dropping the idea of judgment: stands or falls as his master may judge, and substituting the idea of continuing or failing to continue in service that is advantageous to his lord. The reason assigned for this change, that it is more suitable to the following, rests on misunderstanding.

We must, of course, distinguish in our criticism. It is not presumption but the very best service we can render each other to point out each other’s deviations from the Master’s will and his Word and to remind each other what his will and his Word really require. It is an entirely different matter and the height of presumptuousness to go beyond this and to judge another where the Lord has laid down no requirements, misread his Word as if he. had, or just to add requirements we deem excellent. It is again paradoxical: the tyranny of the weak often exceeds the tyranny of the strong.

But not for one moment is it an undecided question whether the strong will stand in the Lord’s judgment—now turning from any “lord” to Christ, one divine “Lord.” Let no weak brother harbor wrong, secret expectations on that point even if he maintains silence as to criticism. Most positively the strong “shall be made to stand,” passive, by the Lord himself. Does anyone foolishly imagine that the strength of the strong will prove a hindrance to the Lord’s making him stand? “Able is the Lord to make him stand.” Does anyone imagine that the Lord needs the assistance of the weak for making the strong stand? He may use the strong to keep the weak from falling; he surely could not do the reverse. Paul is careful to use the passive and then to name the agent, the Lord. While he is disposing of the weak he keeps an eye on the strong who, while they are strong through the Lord’s grace, are ever to remember that “with might of ours here naught is done,” that trust in one’s own strength is the most dangerous weakness. All the strong remain so and thus stand by the Lord’s grace alone.

Δυνατεῖ, “has power,” refers to the power of grace, the δύναμις of the gospel (1:16), and not to omnipotence. Liberty is beset with its own perils, and Paul is fully conscious of them. But Christian liberty is never to be rejected because there are perils attached to its exercise. Paul has the fullest assurance that, through Christ’s grace, it will, indeed, succeed. When the Lord gave us this gospel liberty he made no mistake that must now be corrected by weak brethren and by their advice regarding what not to eat and to drink. For the weak the question is not whether the strong may fall but whether they, the weak, will be able to stand.

If they regard their weakness as strength, this may prevent the Lord’s strength from becoming their reliance. Their weakness is not the ideal for the weak or for the strong. If such an ideal were attained, one would have to tremble lest the whole church fall. The true ideal is “to be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might” (Eph. 6:10), to make all the weak strong, and in that strength to use our God-given liberty and all other blessings and gifts.

Romans 14:5

5 Instead of the strong despising the weak, and the weak criticizing the strong, and each hurting the other, what is the proper course with regard to all adiaphora? Let each man, first of all, look to himself and to the Lord. When Paul states this he introduces another adiaphoron and so broadens the subject.

The one judges one day as above another; the other judges every day alike. Let each one be assured in his own mind. He who minds the day, to the Lord he minds; and he who eats, to the Lord he eats, for to God he gives thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat and gives thanks to God.

In regard to any adiaphoron the first and essential thing is that each, in his own mind, consider the Lord. Note that the double statement about days is formulated like the one about food (v. 2). Even the thought is similar, save that it is stated in reverse order. One eats all food and prizes all of it equally highly, while another eats one kind of food and prizes it higher than the other kind. This is also true with regard to days, one judges one day as being better than another, while the other judges every day to be equally high and excellent. As with food, so with days: the one thinks certain food and certain days to be beneath others, while the other thinks all food and all days to be as high as the first man thinks only some food and some days are. It is apparent where the weakness lies; it is in him who regards some food and some days beneath other food and other days.

We have the idiomatic use of παρά: to judge a day “beside” a day, in comparison with, making a difference, placing one day below or above another. So also “to judge every day” means to put every day on the same high plane. What the first judges only regarding a certain day, the second judges regarding every day.

We see no reason for refusing to assume that the distinction here touched upon refers to the Jewish Sabbath. What other day would any Roman Christian judge to be above other days? That self-chosen days are referred to is scarcely to be assumed. It is not difficult to see that a few Jewish Christians, some of them who perhaps came from the old mother church in Jerusalem, still clung to the Sabbath much as the Christians did after Pentecost. This does not imply that they insisted on this day or on any legal observance but only that they closed their shop or their store, ceased work, and kept the day holy. We see that Paul mentions this adiaphoristic practice only incidentally, only as an addition to the question regarding food.

From this it is safe to conclude that only very few followed this practice and that they did it quietly and caused no friction whatever. Yet it lay on the same level as the question regarding food.

It is to be noted that Paul has no admonition regarding this adiaphoron about days as he has about food in v. 2. This was an adiaphoron regarding which no one looked down on another or, on the other hand, criticized another. All that Paul needs to say is that “each one should be assured in his own mind.” This does not, of course, mean that each one should be assured that he is right and the other wrong, and that each should then honor the conviction of the other. That would be indifferent tolerance as it is practiced by the world. No apostle ever placed right and wrong side by side and preached tolerance.

“Assured in his own mind” means: convinced that the course adopted is best for himself, convinced thus without even in his own mind casting a reflection on the other. It is fair to conclude that this was done in Rome regarding the question as to days. Nobody thought anything about it when here and there a member closed his shop or store and discontinued work on Saturday; it was his privilege to do so. And those who did so cast no reflection on the rest, knowing that it was their privilege to treat Saturday like any other day of the week. The same practice should have prevailed with regard to the question concerning food but unfortunately did not.

Romans 14:6

6 We now see why Paul introduces the question regarding days and combines it with the question regarding food. “He who minds the day” by following the right motive in his own mind and conviction, “to the Lord he minds it.” He thinks only of the Lord and casts no reflection on others because he knows that they, too, are most earnestly devoted to the Lord. That is the way in which to treat an adiaphoron. It is never an issue. The addition: “and he that regardeth not the day,” etc., (A. V.), lacks sufficient textual authority.

Paul continues: “and he who eats” meat as well as vegetables, “to the Lord he eats, for to God he gives thanks,” in this way showing that he eats to the Lord, for not what he puts into his mouth is the essential thing, but what comes out of his mouth (Matt. 15:11), the proper thanksgiving for all food. Again: “and he who does not eat” meat but only vegetables, “to the Lord he does not eat and” for what he does eat “gives thanks to God” exactly as the other. But we must note that Paul does not say of this brother that he gives thanks for not eating meat: “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are; I fast twice in the week” (I abstain from meat)! Luke 18:11, etc. Such giving of thanks would, of course, be an abomination. Note that the emphasis is on the three Κυρίῳ (minus the article = Yahweh, God) and on the two τῷΘεῷ. This, Paul would say, is the right attitude and the right way: each “in his own mind” concerned about God and no “setting at nought,” no “judging” another (v. 3).

Paul says nothing more on the question regarding days. Already in Jerusalem at the very beginning of the Christian Era the apostles selected Sunday as a day of worship. Saturday was gradually dropped. There was never a legislation regarding the whole matter. All was done in Christian liberty with an eye “to the Lord.” Some Jewish Christians, who felt attached to Saturday, showed that attachment for years; Rome, it seems, still had a few of these. In this spirit of liberty we still observe Sunday, not as being commanded, but as serving our need for regular public worship.

Legalistic ideas are still projected into Sunday; the worst feature about them is not that they center upon Sunday but that they are legalistic evidence of a spirit that is totally foreign to Christ, to the apostles, and to the Christian Church. Read the Augsburg Confession, Article 28, § 53, etc., C. Tr. 91, etc.; the author’s The Active Church Member, 161, etc.

Romans 14:7

7 These emphatic datives “to the Lord,” “to God” apply to the question regarding days and to the question regarding food only because they apply to the Christian’s whole life and to his death. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For both when we live, to the Lord we live; and when we die, to the Lord we die. Both, then, when we live, and when we die, we are the Lord’s. For, for this Christ died and became alive that of both dead and living he might become lord.

Paul is speaking only of us Christians: “none of us,” i.e., believers, whether strong or weak. He is not speaking of the Lord’s power and his providence as these let us live and die as, when, and how he wills. He is also not saying that our living and our dying affect not only ourselves but also our brethren and other men. These datives “to himself”—“to the Lord” are like those occuring in v. 6, all are equally emphatic, all denote subjective and personal relation. The contrast is between “to himself” and “to the Lord.”

Not a single believer lives “to himself,” and he does not even die “to himself,” for we are not our own, we have been bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:19, 20). None of us who is a true Christian, whether we are weak or strong regarding adiaphora, lives or dies except as an ἀλλότριοςοἰκέτης, “another’s household servant.” All our service is not for ourselves as though we were our own masters. Our love, desire, honor are directed toward Another. We have given up living according to our own blind notions and foolish desires.

As for our dying, we have given up the idea of concluding our lives in the blind and foolish way in which so many others are content to pass into eternity. Our death is, indeed, not in our hands; God fixes its time and its manner. Paul is not speaking of this but of how, when we are dying, we turn our souls to Christ, commend ourselves to him, and die in the faith that is faithful unto death. When we use this as a funeral text we should not alter the sense and have it mean that our life and our death, the way in which we live and die, has a strong influence upon others. What Paul says goes much deeper and is richer in every way.

Since our whole life and even our death look not to ourselves but to the Lord, can we think of making an exception in the case of adiaphora, unessentials, such as the food one eats or does not eat? That would indeed be the height of folly. See how Paul here lifts all of his readers to the highest level and to a broad, true vision of themselves and of their relation to the Lord. See, too, how here, as so often when he would solve some small question, he offers the solution that lies in the vast fundamentals. He takes it out of the little, ill-lighted room where one can hardly see it aright into the full sunlight of gospel truth, and the little difficulty disappears.

Romans 14:8

8 We twice have τέ—τέ, “both—and,” and the ἐάν clauses introduce a condition of expectancy. Both when we live, to the Lord we live; and when we die, to the Lord we die—mind, soul, spirit are directed to him, the body and every member are turned to him, even the little adiaphora are used for him. And this our personal, subjective attitude expresses only the fact that “both when we live and when we die we are the Lord’s.” “Accordingly,” οὖν, means that, when we so live and die to the Lord, we are indeed his. To be his, wholly his, is our joy and blessedness, our purpose and intent. “We are the Lord’s” is objective, the great fact that motivates us in life and in death. Here Paul uses the articulated τῷΚυρίῳ and τοῦΚυρίου because Christ is referred to.

Some reduce the force of v. 7, 8 to responsibility: in living and in dying we are not responsible to ourselves but to the Lord because we belong to him. To obtain that sense δοῦλος should have been used instead of οἰκέτης in v. 4; and that sense takes all the sweetness and the joy out of Paul’s words. We see, too, why Paul adds dying to living in this connection where the question was one only regarding meat and vegetables. This little life, in which such little questions come up, will soon end. Who of us wants it to end except by dying to the Lord as the Lord’s. When they are placed in the light of our end, so many things shrivel into the trivialities they really are.

Romans 14:9

9 Another “for” explains and throws light upon these datives “to the Lord” and upon this genitive “the Lord’s.” It was for this very reason that Christ died and became alive “that of both dead and living he might become lord” (κυριεύσῃ). The ἵνα clause of purpose is appositional to εἰςτοῦτο. “Died and became alive” indicate the momentary acts that constitute death and return to life. The two belong together; Christ became lord by means of both and did not become lord of the dead by his death and lord of the living by his return to life. The combination of terms is merely formal; and the order “of both dead and living” intends to match “Christ died and became alive.” The reading: “Christ both died and rose and revived” (A. V.), and several other variants, are efforts to make clear the original reading; but they lack sufficient textual authority.

“Became alive” refers to the first moment when the soul returned and animated the body in the tomb. This is generally called the vivification. Instantly Christ left the closed tomb, made the timeless, triumphant descent into hell, and then appeared again and again to his chosen witnesses. One may call the vivification alone the resurrection, but when we speak of the resurrection we commonly include the appearances.

The ἔζησεν cannot refer to the earthly life of Christ prior to his death. There is no reason for speaking of that here, especially with the strangely reversed order “he died and lived.” It is current thought in the Scriptures to connect his death and his resurrection with his rule as lord; 6:9, 10; 8:34; Phil. 2:8, etc.; Luke 24:26; Matt. 28:18. The verb means, “to be lord and to rule as lord,” κυριεύω matching ὁΚύριος. Paul here develops what he touches upon in v. 4 with the expression “another’s household servant.” He who died and came to life was thereby made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). His ruling as lord is evidenced in grace and in glory: “that I may be his own, and live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as he is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity,” Luther. Thus “to the Lord” we live and “to the Lord” we die, we are his own in his blessed household whether we are “dead” or still “living.” We are happy here while living “to him” in this earthly life, still happier as dead “to him,” when the soul enters the “gain” (Phil. 1:21) of living with him in glory. In the Communion Service, American Lutheran Hymnal 60, Rom. 14:8, 9 furnish the words: “Lord Jesus! thou hast bought us: to thee will we live, to thee will we die, and thine will we be forever!” Also the prayer: Herr Jesu, dir leb’ ich; Herr Jesu, dir sterb’ ich; Herr Jesu, dein bin ich, tot und lebendig.

Romans 14:10

10 Living and dying to the Lord and being his belong to the idea of grace which lies in the soteriological term “Lord,” which is evidenced also by his dying and his rising for us in order to rule over us with grace and glory. But this “Lord” is also to be our Judge, and the very thought of our dying and being dead contains the other thought about our final judgment, which Paul also touched upon in v. 4 when he asked about judging another’s household servant, and when he said that such a servant stands or falls to his own lord. It is this that Paul now elaborates. He reverts to verse 3 with the pointed questions: But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or also thou, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? You two, the weak and the strong, who are actually brothers, for both of whom Christ died and arose, both of whom ought to live and to die not unto themselves—what reason that comports with what you thus are can justify your action toward each other? Do you forget that each of you stands and falls only to his Lord (v. 3); that he is the one Judge who passes judgment on his servants; and that one servant is not to pass judgment on his fellow servants? Both questions are rhetorical; both bring home the wrong action; each leaves the brother addressed without an answer.

For we all shall stand at the judgment seat of God. For this reason Paul asks the two questions, and for this reason they are so serious, for this reason the first question should stop the weak from judging the strong regarding an adiaphoron, and the second question should stop the strong from setting at nought the weak because of an adiaphoron. For each would be asked this question at the judgment, and neither could then give an answer even as he cannot now give one. The time to ask such pertinent questions is now, and one should not wait until it is too late. Let these questions remove the flaws from our conduct while they can yet be removed, which must be done before we are dead. If we have been guilty, now is the time to repent and to amend.

The middle of this verb is intransitive. Βῆμα is the platform on which the chair of the judge rests. The correct reading is “the judgment seat of God.” This is changed by a few texts to “of Christ” (A. V.). This is unnecessary, for the constant teaching of the Scripture is that God shall execute the judgment through Christ (John 5:22).

Romans 14:11

11 The citation from Isa. 45:23 is intended not so much as proof for the final judgment, since no Christian needed such proof, but as marking the solemn weight of what Paul here says about it in his admonition. The citation is also not a direct statement which announces the final judgment; it is much more. While it involves the judgment, it declares that everyone who is judged will confess God, i.e., approve his verdict, even the verdict which each receives for himself.

For it has been written (and is on record for all time):

As I live, declares the Lord, to me every knee shall bow,

And every tongue shall confess in regard to God.

“Declares the Lord” is Paul’s insertion, for this is necessary in order to identify the speaker. Here, as in v. 6, Κύριος without the article = Yahweh. In the Hebrew and in the LXX the votary formula is longer: “I have sworn by myself; the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return.” Paul replaces this with the brief votary formula which is otherwise used by God: ζῶἐγώ, followed by ὅτι: “as I live,” i.e., so surely shall what I say come to pass. God’s oath of assurance can be uttered by naming no one higher than himself. In the formula, “as I live,” subject and verb are reversed in the Greek and both are made emphatic, and “live” is not mere existence but the vita which is activity, action, and thus vital divine power.

In Isaiah’s words “to me” = to me alone and to no idol gods. The two subjects of the two clauses are placed chiastically so as to bring them together: verb—every knee, and every tongue—verb. In neither Isaiah nor here nor in Phil. 2:10, 11 (a most pertinent parallel) are “every knee and every tongue” restricted to the godly. Paul cites the passage here where he speaks only of Christians; but that means that what the Lord says about every person applies also to every Christian. To bend the knee for God and to confess for him signify only that at the time of the last judgment all men shall acknowledge God as God; in more detail, “that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” Phil. 2:11.

The Hebrew has “shall swear,” the LXX adds the accusative, “with respect to God,” which merely interprets the Hebrew. Paul also translates the Hebrew interpretatively: “shall confess in reference to God.” Some regard the dative which is used here as the object, and because it is regularly followed by the accusative, they change the meaning of the verb to “shall give praise to God” (R. W. P.). But it is plain that the two datives are here alike. They are not objects: ἐμοί—τῷΘεῷ, but datives of respect: bow the knee with respect to me—confess (make out-and-out acknowledgment) with respect to God. In the final judgment every human being shall by act and by word signify with respect to God that he alone is God.

They shall do this even as each receives his final verdict from God. The implication is that, by doing this, every man shall signify that the verdict pronounced on him is true and just in every way. That explains the Hebrew that every tongue “shall swear”; the significant statement and the act shall take place in the very presence of the august God and shall thus in reality be a sworn oath. For an oath is a declaration that is made as being in the very presence of God.

Romans 14:12

12 What this means for the Christian is briefly indicated: So, then, everyone of us shall give account concerning himself to God. see 5:18 on Paul’s ἄραοὖν. The thought is not that each of us is to give account only for himself and not for his brother; or that we have no business to interfere since God, the most competent Judge, will attend to judging our brother. These are not the points suggested, but the fact that each of us will have to give an account as to how he on his part acted toward his brother, i.e., will have to give account for setting his weak brother at nought or for having judged his strong brother—in either case, with respect to adiaphora. These adiaphora are in themselves innocent and harmless and remain so when in Christian love for each other we let them alone; but they become serious when we as strong or as weak brethren do what v. 3 states and forget love to each other. This seriousness Paul points out. What shall we say when at the judgment God asks us questions such as those stated in v. 10. “To give” and “to ask” λόγον, “word” = to give or to ask “account,” “reckoning” (Matt. 12:36; Luke 16:2; Acts 19:40).

Romans 14:13

13 In v. 1–12 both strong and weak are considered together, but the correction is intended chiefly for the latter who, because they judge others, are pointed to God’s judgment seat. The former are involved to the extent that their setting the weak at nought also constitutes a judging. Now Paul instructs and directs the strong as to their conduct toward the weak. No longer, therefore, let us be judging each other, namely in regard to adiaphora which God has neither commanded nor forbidden but left to the decisions of love. This is the durative present hortative subjunctive: be judging at any time. Paul includes himself; he includes all his readers.

This does not imply that he and they have hitherto sinned in this respect; exhortations against wrong are in place for all of us, even for the best of us, if for no other reason then at least that we may keep on avoiding the wrong. Recall the words of Jesus as recorded in Matt. 7:1–5.

It is important to note that “each other” denotes persons. While the whole discussion centers about adiaphora in which we are not to judge each other, we are really not to judge either persons or anything else in any matter but ever only to abide by the judgments which God has pronounced or will yet pronounce. A person was once asked: “You would not damn a Jew, would you!” He answered rightly: “No, Jesus has done that in the case of every unbelieving Jew in Mark 16:16. All we can do is to echo his judgments.” So Paul did in 1 Cor. 5:3–5. Jesus himself said, “As I hear, I judge,” John 5:30.

In this sense Paul adds: but rather make this your judgment, not to place a stumbling block or a deathtrap for your brother. Here the aorist imperative κρίνατε is used: once for all declare this as your judgment. One act, final and permanent, is referred to. The aorist is more peremptory than the preceding present subjunctive. Paul does not include himself, because he had long ago made this decision for himself. He says this to all the Romans, for he does not know how many have not as yet made this decision or have not as yet made it solidly enough. This is a verdict they are to pronounce for themselves. The infinitive clause is made a substantive by τό and is in apposition to τοῦτο (R. 1078)

The words πρόσκομμα and σκάνδαλον do not have the same force, they are not two words to express the same idea. Πρόσκομμα means “stumbling block,” not a block but the result (-μα suffix, R. 151) of striking against one: an actual stumbling, one that upsets one, makes him fall and hurt himself. On σκάνδαλον see 11:9: the trigger that springs a deadly trap and thus the word for a deathtrap. The difference is important, for one may rise and recover from a stumbling, but to spring that trap trigger involves being killed. Both terms are, of course, used metaphorically, but in the sense and with the difference indicated. Our resolve must stand: never to hurt our brother spiritually nor—which is much worse—to kill him spiritually. The trouble is that, when we offend a weak brother, we can never tell in advance whether he will be only injured or will be destroyed. The idea that stumbling may be caused the strong by the weak while deadly entrapment would be caused the weak by the strong, is rather strange, for Paul is now addressing only the strong.

Romans 14:14

14 He agrees with them in regard to the adiaphora and the question regarding food. I know and have been persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean through itself; only for him who reckons something to be unclean, (only) for him is it unclean.

Paul speaks for himself without arrogance and states the fact, which he, of course, wants the weak as well as the strong in Rome to know. But note the absence of an ἐγώ; he does not place himself into contrast with anybody by saying: “I for my part,” “I as far as I am concerned.” No; in gentle fashion he would lead all to say what he here says regarding himself. It is really not a matter of faith, this question about food and other adiaphora; if is a matter of knowledge: “I know,” Paul says. And he states how he knows: “and have been persuaded (and so now have the persuasion or conviction) in connection with the Lord Jesus, that nothing is κοινόν, common, unclean, or unholy, through itself.” The use of κοινόν does not justify the conclusion that these scruples were of Jewish origin, were held by former Jews who thought that meat was ceremonially unclean and thus confined themselves to a purely vegetable diet (v. 2); for even the strictest Jews never rejected meat altogether or to any special degree, they ate all the kosher meat they desired, and when they fasted abstained from food as food and not just from meat.

see 6:11 on the phrase “in Christ.” Ἐν means “in connection with.” Paul’s is not a persuasion which he has reasoned out for himself, or a conviction which he has arrived at without special reasoning, or a conclusion that was prompted by his contact with all kinds of men. Such are the religious persuasions of many men. Paul’s was due to his contact with the Lord Jesus, and he names him “Lord” because he has said we live and we die to him and actually are the Lord’s (v. 8). “Lord Jesus” is a name, like “Christ Jesus,” and thus needs no article. “In Lord Jesus” = in connection with him, the living connection of faith, the enlightening, convincing, persuading connection of his Word, see passages such as Matt. 15:11. This convinced Paul that food was altogether an adiaphoron in the Christian Church, and that a distinction such as that of “clean” and “unclean,” religiously proper and improper, was completely abolished as Peter, for instance, had been elaborately taught. Acts 10:9–16. “Through itself” = when the food is the only medium for our considering and judging it, hence “objectively” or “in and by itself.”

Εἰμή does not state an exception to the phrase διʼ ἑαυτοῦ; to translate “save” or “except” sounds as though it does, hence we translate it “only”: “Only for him who reckons something to be unclean, (only) for that person is it unclean.” In other words: no uncleanness exists objectively, any uncleanness is subjective, exists only in the mind of this or that person. The idea is not that my subjective reckoning in any way makes anything objectively unclean; no subjective opinion ever in the least altered an objective fact.

“To that one,” meaning to that one alone, brings out two things: only in his mind—only by a mistake in his mind. To say that Paul is broad, liberal, etc., and that the weak brother is narrow, illiberal, etc., is to use inadequate and confusing terms, not only regarding adiaphora, but also regarding matters that have been forever settled by the Lord and by his Word. Both intend to be only as broad and as narrow as the Lord is, to whom they live and die, and whose they are; but Paul exemplifies breadth and narrowness as the Lord actually reveals it, the other man fails because of weakness and misreckoning, which are, perhaps, due to ignorance, timidity, faulty reasoning, wrong opinions of others, and the like. And let us remember that all of us are liable to such weakness, are often unconscious of its existence in ourselves, and ever need the admonition: “Be strong in the Lord!” Eph. 6:10.

Romans 14:15

15 “For” simply intends to explain more fully and to do that by exemplifying the very point at issue, namely the adiaphoron of food. There is not a gap in the thought; we need supply nothing. With “for” Paul says: “Let me explain this by using food as the example, the thing of which we are speaking—food which is really an adiaphoron as the Lord Jesus teaches but regarding some of which a few brethren still have scruples.” The explanation restricts itself to the strong and the correctly informed who have a weak brother beside them and may themselves easily fall into a serious mistake, not indeed as to opinions about food, but as to what they may do to this weak brother. That he should be fully instructed in a kind and a helpful way, goes without saying. But what about the meanwhile? It may take some time to free him from his unnecessary scruples. In fact, if the strong make the easy mistake of setting the weak at nought (v. 3 and 10), they will thereby spoil all efforts on their part to remove those scruples.

For if because of food thy brother is grieved, no longer art thou walking according to love. Distintinguish βρῶσις, the act of eating, das Speisen, from βρῶμα, food, die Speise. Both “because of food” and “be grieved” are broad. The former includes anything we say or do in regard to food, which may cause grief or pain to our weak brother who is still entangled in his scruples. This grief does not refer back to v. 13b and is not to be identified with stumbling block or trap trigger or both, nor should this identification be used to prefer the reading γάρ to δέ. Grief is grief, and Paul has been at pains to show how it is brought about, namely by setting the weak brother at nought (v. 3 and 10), by passing invidious remarks, by acting superior, by making sport of him, and the like. To say nothing of stumbling blocks and deathtraps, even to grieve a brother, to make him feel bad “on account of food,” a plain adiaphoron, is certainly not walking according to the norm (κατά) of love, ἀγάπη (see 1:7), the love of right understanding and intelligence coupled with corresponding purpose.

“Is grieved” is taken to mean “is injured” on the supposition that the weak brother is induced to eat food about which he has scruples; but this is probably not Paul’s sense. Paul covers the whole conduct of the strong and the whole hurt of the weak, from the slight and the slur upward to actual injury of conscience and to even the loss of faith. Why not follow what Paul says, which is so complete in every way, and be content with his statement?

On the other hand, let not tender brethren misapply κατὰἀγάπην and make it a sentimental thing that never grieves anybody and for fear of doing so gives up the Lord’s own principles and grieves him and all judicious brethren. This is ἀγάπη, the love that clearly understands what it is doing and why it does what it does.

The love that knows what the Lord’s Word really says and what it requires for making the weak strong never uses food or discussions about food to hurt anybody’s feeling; its own intelligence and purpose forbid such self-defeating folly. It instructs with all kindliness; it forbears with all gentleness. But when the weak person starts to judge, to set himself on the judgment seat, then, since it is no longer a question of food but of presumptuous arrogance, love that is ἀγάπη will do what Paul does in v. 1–12, it will correct and admonish and will even grieve as Paul grieved (2 Cor. 7:9–11, the very same verb λυπεῖν), for godly grief is most blessed whether we be strong or weak. When R., W. P. says that Paul never “pleads for love in place of knowledge,” he evidently misunderstands Paul’s statement. Paul is pleading for true knowledge according to which genuine love always acts and thus also attains its intelligent purpose. To set at nought and thus to grieve is neither knowledge and intelligence nor is it love.

Paul now considers the other end of the line, the actual and the complete ruin of a weak brother because of the way in which the strong treat him in regard to the matter of food. There is much between mere grieving and complete ruining; when Paul speaks of both, all that lies between them is included. By means of thy food be not destroying him in whose behalf Christ died!

It is perhaps unwarranted to identify the grieving and the destroying and, because the former seems too slight, to intensify it to injuring which may result fatally. It is also unlikely to make the destruction a possible result of the grief. No; the two are the end points, and there is a gradation of effects between them. “By means of thy food” is the dative of means; the present imperative, “be not destroying,” includes everything that would act destructively and not merely the final destruction itself. Paul does not describe a certain way by which such destroying proceeds, for he wants to include any and all possible ways. Why, then, limit Paul and say that he refers to only the one way of making the weak act against his conscience? Are there no other ways that lead to faith’s destruction? When Paul speaks of destroying he reverts to what he means by “deathtrap” in v. 13.

The enormity of such an action is brought out by the contrast: “by means of food—him in whose behalf Christ died.” Christ, our Lord, died for this brother, whom thou art destroying with such a trifling thing as thy food! Paul seems to shrink from the aorist, from the actual complete destruction of the poor weak brother’s soul—as if he would not say that such soul murder were possible among Christians. Note how he speaks of such bloodguilt in Acts 20:26. Yes, there is frightful danger for the strong even in things such as the adiaphora. On ὑπέρ, “in behalf of,” which in certain connections could not be, “in behalf of,” unless it were, “in the stead of,” see 5:6, 8.

Romans 14:16

16 Let not, therefore, your good be blasphemed! For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this keeps serving Christ is well-pleasing to God and valuable to men.

Paul reaches out to the damage that may be done beyond the limits of the congregation. We may capitalize: “your Good.” In v. 15 the singular “thou” is the representative singular for the strong who may forget love and the weak brother’s soul; the plural “your” Good refers to the entire membership, all of whom possess this Good. It is not “the good” they do but the great Good they possess as God’s gift to them, and in ἀγαθόν there lies the idea of a good that benefits, blesses. The term is intended to be comprehensive: the great unit Good; hence we do not have the plural τὰἀγαθά, which considers the parts. “The Good” is what Paul and the Romans call it and not what outsiders call it who are looking only for something in the conduct of Christians whereby to slander their Good.

When we define this Good, various descriptions may be given: the whole Christian faith, our whole salvation in Christ, the gospel, etc., but scarcely “the kingdom of God” as some suggest when looking at v. 17. The opinion that “the Good” = your Christian liberty, is not tenable. Outsiders would not be so specific, nor would they see much in that to provoke vicious language on their part. And the idea that “your” refers to the strong, and the blasphemy to what the weak would say about liberty in adiaphora, is still more unlikely although some propose this view. The context points to outsiders. When Christians are divided because of eating and drinking and other adiaphora such as clothing, cut of their hair, etc., outsiders certainly make sport of them and their Christianity, and these Christians themselves furnish the occasion and the reason for this. They injure the missionary cause in their own community. “Blaspheme” is a strong word and should not be softened; for to speak derisively of any holy matter is to blaspheme.

Romans 14:17

17 “For” = you must remember. “The kingdom of God” is one of the supreme concepts of the New Testament. see Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3; many passages in Acts. Here the kingdom of grace is referred to. The vital thing to be noted is that earthly concepts of kingdoms do not determine this divine concept. Those kingdoms make their kings, who are nothing without them; here the King makes the kingdom, which is nothing without him. The kingdom is where the King rules with his grace and is thus not a nation of people irrespective of him but the domain of human souls in which he is present with his rule of grace. In this sense we pray: “Thy kingdom come!”

This kingdom most certainly does not consist of “eating and drinking.” Here we have βρῶσις, the act (see v. 15, βρῶμα, food), and also πόσις; and they are the proper terms, for God’s rule in Christ and in gospel grace does not consist of activities on our part such as eating and drinking, selecting this or that food, and the like. As to eating and not eating, the presence of the kingdom is not dependent on these acts but on giving thanks to God (v. 6), so that, whether we eat or drink, or whatever we do, we do all to the glory of God, 1 Cor. 10:31. Outward observances have too often been made essential parts of Christ’s kingdom rule, but though they are sedulously practiced they were always a spurious spirituality and not at all of the kingdom. They were practiced by the weak in the faith who acted as though they were strong, yea, as though they were so strong that they could do some of the ruling in the kingdom.

The two nouns that are denied denote activities on our part; the three nouns that are affirmed denote states that are wrought in us by God: “righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit.” The first and fundamental essential is “righteousness,” that state when God declares us righteous as Paul has unfolded at length (3:21, etc.), this righteousness being the very theme of his epistle. Its fruit is “peace” as Paul has Set forth in 5:1, etc.: “Having, therefore, been declared righteous, let us have peace with God,” etc. And with both righteousness and peace there goes joy, the joy that glories on the basis of hope even amid tribulations (5:2, 3). Since “righteousness in the Holy Spirit” is a combination that is never used, it appears that we must connect only the last noun with the phrase: “joy in the Holy Spirit.”

“In the Holy Spirit” (proper name, which needs no article) is exactly like “in Christ Jesus” (6:11), in both instances ἐν denotes “in union or in connection with.” That connection is formed when the Holy Spirit enters our hearts by the Word and by baptism (6:3). When God in heaven declares the sinner righteous, the Spirit enters that sinner’s heart. No man is ever justified without in the same instant being also regenerated. All three: righteousness, peace, joy, are to be taken objectively, they are states wrought by grace: grace declares us righteous in God’s sight, God is at peace with us, salvation and thus eternal joy are ours. Where God’s grace works these results, God’s kingdom is to be found. They are not separate, so that one or two could be minus the others. They are a unit; where one is, the others are also.

We have all three by faith, and thus in and by faith realize our acquittal and state of acquittal like the prisoner whose acquittal sets him free; realize that God is at peace with us and are happy in that peace; realize our salvation that is present and will last forever and thus rejoice. This is the subjective effect of objective possession. He who has this grace is in the kingdom under God’s rule of glory. Such is the kingdom which is established wholly by God, is “not of this world” but “the kingdom of the heavens,” as it is so often called in Matthew, which comes from God, from heaven, and is heavenly in its nature.

But we are told: “These words denote not the relation of the Christian to God, but his life in relation to others. Righteousness is not used in its technical sense of the relation between God and man, but means righteousness or just dealing; peace is the peace with one another which should characterize Christians; joy is the joy which comes from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the community.” Sanday and Headlam. The Spirit dwells only in the believing and justified individual and not in the community. This conception overlooks the fact that this is the kingdom “of God” and thus most emphatically God’s relation to the Christians, and thus their relation to him which is established by his grace. This conception which makes God’s kingdom a relation of men to men is a reduction of the mighty Scriptural view of the kingdom. One is sorry to find it so widespread.

It is the view of modernism, of all those who “work” for the spreading of the kingdom by establishing a better social, economic, governmental, personal justice in the world, by reforms, abolition of wars, and all types of uplift movements. Men may mend and patch—God knows the world needs it—and the devil ever keeps tearing new holes to be mended. But all this tinkering and even its best results are not the kingdom of God, for his kingdom is spiritual, eternal.

Romans 14:18

18 This second “for” completes the first which occurred in v. 17. First, remember what the kingdom really is, Paul explains what it is; then remember how it regulates our conduct, and Paul states just how it does this and at once adds the result, namely that this will be the very opposite of furnishing anybody occasion or cause for blaspheming our great and blessed Good. “He who in this serves Christ” makes the matter personal and individual and yet, by using the third person, makes it general for all Christians, weak as well as strong. “In this” = in what the kingdom of God really is as just stated, namely not eating and drinking but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Spirit. The singular “in this” = in this as a unit; Paul does not divide by saying “in those.” “He who in this keeps serving Christ” certainly refers to the Christian’s conduct. The right relation to God automatically produces the right conduct. The flesh tries to hinder this but is daily and more and more effectually overcome. After we have been placed in a new relation and filled with the power of grace that placed us there we can, indeed, “keep serving Christ.”

But note ὁδουλεύων and that this word recalls all that is said in 6:12–23 about presenting ourselves and our members as δοῦλοι to God after we have been freed from the dominion of sin and are happy and blessed slaves of God. Here we have Luther’s “live under him in his kingdom and serve him,” etc. The participle means, “being a slave and working as a slave.” The implication is not as it is in διακονεῖν, rendering service for Christ, doing as much as we can for him; but in all that we do having no will of our own, being directed and controlled only by Christ’s will, he being our Κύριος, our only Lord and Master. Paul harks back to v. 4: “another’s household servant”; to v. 6–9: eating, not eating, living, dying “to the Lord,” “we are the Lord’s,” by his death and resurrection he bought us. How plain is the application in the present connection! It is not acting as Christ’s slave, who makes Christ’s will his own, to set at nought a weak fellow slave or to judge a fellow slave who is stronger than we are (v. 3 and 10). He who takes all his orders from his divine Master, who bought us with his bloody death (5:8), will not thus obey his flesh.

We thus decline to make “in this” mean, “in this condition” or, “on the principle implied in these virtues” (taking “righteousness,” etc., to signify our virtues). The one supreme virtue is that, as true slaves of our Master Christ, we make his will our own, and this essential virtue grows out of our new relation to God in his kingdom.

He who, as a slave to Christ, submits his will to him in all he does “is well-pleasing to God” and need never fear to stand before his judgment seat (v. 10). Δόκιμος ordinarily means, “tested and approved as genuine” (see 1:28), and we may take it in that sense here: but the dative accompanying it does not mean, “approved of men” (our versions) but, “for men.” Men do not do the testing and make the approval of the one who subjects his will to Christ as a slave. This dative does not name the agent but, like the other dative “to God,” is the dative with an adjective (R. 537): “well-pleasing to God—tested out for men.” God (Christ) did and does the testing out of these slaves of his, and the test they stand is the one he applies, namely that they let him and his grace rule their wills in his kingdom.

“Tested out for men” means that God (Christ) presents the slave so tested out to men as being “valuable to men.” The idea is not that “a sound Christian character wins even the world’s approval.” Too often, the more one is a slave to Christ and well-pleasing to God, the more the world hates that slave, which is, indeed, as it should be. The thought is that by being such a true slave of Christ furnishes no just cause to men for blaspheming the gospel (v. 16) as he would if he followed his flesh by acting contrary to this Lord’s will in the matter of adiaphora, such as eating and drinking, trying to hurt his brother in one way or in another. What men may do without a just cause is not considered here. Τοῖςἀνθρώποις has the generic article.

Romans 14:19

19 Accordingly, therefore, (see 5:18) let us pursue the things belonging to the upbuilding of each other. Some good texts have the indicative instead of the hortative subjunctive: “we pursue,” we make this our rule of life. This is the same kind of a variant as that found in 5:1. The scribe wrote short o for long o, since the text was read to a number of scribes by a reader. The genitives are merely possessive: “the things of peace,” such as belong to peace, etc. If we pursue these alone, we shall always have peace. Peace is peace with each other, the true fruit of peace with God (v. 17). The renderings, “That make for peace,” and, “Whereby we may edify one another,” merely make the English more smooth.

“Upbuilding” in the Biblical sense is the spiritual strengthening of all that pertains to our faith and our inner life. Our English “edification” is frequently used to indicate the satisfied religious feeling produced by some sermon or some religious service. Admonition, correction, and rebuke truly help to build us up but are not called edifying in the modern sense of the word. “The things of the upbuilding for each other” (Greek) = the things that belong to our mutual upbuilding “upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone,” Eph. 2:20. We see that Paul must admonish his readers regarding treatment of the weak. Abstract nouns may or may not have the article; in English we say, “belonging to peace,” but, “belonging to the upbuilding”; the Greek has “the peace” as well.

We have full Christian liberty in all adiaphora, and this should never be discounted. Sometimes adiaphora cease to be such, and then liberty also ceases. This phase of the subject, namely adiaphora that are not genuinely such and adiaphora that are misused in the interest of error, is fully treated in the F. C., X., C. Tr. 1053, the best presentation to this day. Paul treats only genuine adiaphora in the present chapter.

With regard to these our liberty does not consist in this (as so many think), that each of us is free to do just as he personally pleases. No; being entirely free to do or not to do, to use or not to use, each, of course, makes a choice, but in doing so looks to his brethren, to what will benefit them most, say in promoting peace and harmony and especially in aiding to build up each other. Liberty is precious, but it carries its responsibilities. Like all good and precious things it must be used with good sense and good purpose; these two constitute love or ἀγάπη.

Romans 14:20

20 Do not for the sake of food be tearing down the work of God! Do not use this your liberty regarding food so as to be tearing down the spiritual work God is trying to build up in your still weak brother! Κατάλυε, “tear down,” is the opposite of the noun “upbuilding.” Thus the injunction of v. 19 is re-enforced by the prohibition stated in v. 20. The present imperative is used for the same reason as was the present imperative in v. 15b. There Paul says: “Be not destroying the person!” here he says: “Be not tearing down the work!” By tearing down and wrecking the work the person is being destroyed. The positive is plural, “Let us pursue,” all of us; the negative is singular, “Be not tearing down,” because this pertains only to the strong who might be inclined to use their liberty unscrupulously and even to set at nought and to mock the overscrupulous and weak. The motive stated in v. 15, regarding the person is that Christ died for that person; here, regarding the work, the motive is that it is God’s work. This motive should prompt and deter, prompt to help save the person, help further work, deter from the opposites.

All things are clean. That fact stands despite the weak brother and his scruples about meat, whatever their cause. In this Paul once more (v. 14) supports the strong brethren and their liberty to eat any kind of food. But μέν indicates that another side of the matter must be considered: but (= on the other hand) a bad thing for the man who eats despite stumbling block; excellent not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor (to do anything) in connection with which thy brother stumbles. The strong are to consider these two facts: eating despite giving dangerous offense—refraining from eating to avoid offense. A strong Christian will have little difficulty in making a choice between the two. Who would want to place a stumbling block into the path of anyone?

Κακόν and καλόν are opposites, and each word is a complete sentence just as we say “bad”—“good” (with “it is” understood). Supply nothing with either word; make no incorrect contrast between “clean” and “bad”; and do not think that Paul changes the plural καθαρά to the singular κακόν (R., W. P.), for the former refers to πάντα, all foods, the latter does not refer to foods, for it is only the predication: “it is bad,” like the next: “it is good.” The claim that Paul does not say what is bad, is pointless. He says for whom something is bad and describes the person so that we see that his own action is what is bad for him. This is typically Pauline: by being bad for another this man’s eating is bad for himself. Διά again has the meaning “despite” (see the explanation of this use in 2:27, and 4:11); it does not have the idea of “with,” of “accompaniment” (R., W. P.), “not far from the notion of means” (R. 582).

Because of this idea of “with” and the view that πρόσκομμα may mean “offense taken” and not only “offense given,” commentators disagree as to whether the strong or the weak are referred to. What adds to this difference of view is the idea that κακόν is to be regarded as the opposite of καθαρά, the failure to note that κακόν and καλόν go together, and that both refer to the food, all of which is καθαρά.

Πρόσκομμα is “stumbling block,” and the idea in the word requires the verb τιθέναι (v. 13), that someone “places” such a block in his own path and then stumbles over it and hurts himself. A stumbling block is always placed and placed for someone else. We may translate metaphorically: “offense,” but every metaphor must retain the true sense of the figure, and here that is: “offense given to another.” The man who eats “despite offense” is the man who eats food that is clean in itself—all food being clean, as just stated, and never otherwise—but eats in spite of (διά) the fact that by his eating, by the food he eats, he places a stumbling block in the way of his weak brother, gives serious offense to that brother. This Paul calls “bad,” bad not only for the weak Christian who stumbles, but bad equally for the strong Christian who makes the weak stumble. Any use of Christian liberty which disregards the damaging effect it may produce upon a weak brother is a bad use. How such eating may prove a stumbling block is not said. The weak brother may be induced to eat against his own weak conscience as explained in 1 Cor. 8:9–11—serious damage, indeed; or he may be only shocked at the other’s eating, openly or quietly in his heart judge the other for his eating (v. 3 and 10), and be inwardly grieved and hurt (v. 15)—damage enough.

Romans 14:21

21 Beside what is a “bad” exercise of liberty Paul places what is an “excellent” exercise. Liberty implies that we are free to do or not to do; we must choose. And, as far as others are concerned, the choice ought always to elect what will benefit them and not elect what would damage anyone; for in addition to liberty we have ἀγάπη, intelligent and purposeful love, which lives and dies for the Lord, with a slave’s will serves Christ only, thus ever pleases God and is truly valuable for men (v. 7–9, 18). Thus: “Morally excellent (καλόν) not to eat meat (κρέα plural, R. 268, meat of different animals), nor to drink wine, nor (elliptical: to do anything) in connection with which thy brother stumbles.”

Τό before the infinitive converts this into a noun and is to be construed also with “to drink” and with the elided infinitive, and joins all three into a unit: “this thing of not eating meat nor drinking wine nor doing anything else.” This whole thing, which is marked as one thing by the one τό, is further defined and limited by the relative clause: ἐνᾦ, “in connection with which thy brother stumbles,” present tense, “stumbles whenever it is placed in his way.” Note that the verb “stumbles” repeats the noun “stumbling block” which was used in v. 20, and that the two are not to be understood in opposite senses: the former in the sense that the brother takes offense, the latter that he is given offense.

Ἐνᾦ is not temporal (R. 978): “while thy brother stumbles”; the verb is intransitive; the fact that it otherwise takes a dative makes no difference, the phrase is here not used in place of such a dative. The idea is that we should do nothing “in connection with which” a brother stumbles. Paul does not say, “might stumble,” for no one can know what might occur; he says “stumbles,” present tense, stumbles regularly, we thus knowing the fact. We therefore reject the addition found in a number of texts: “or is trapped or is weak.” see v. 13 and note that to be trapped is fatal, the very idea allowing of no repetition such as the present tense in the addition made implies. It is also not fair to attribute to Paul a jumbled order like “stumbles—is trapped—is weak.”

R. 858 finds a “good example” of the aorist constative infinitive so that Paul would say: “Excellent to be a permanent vegetarian, a complete abstainer from wine and from anything else, etc.!” Did Paul eat only vegetables, never drink wine, and extend this to all other possible adiaphora? Regarding wine we have 1 Tim. 5:23. Paul kept his balance. B.-D. 338, 1 has understood the aorists correctly: Genau zu fassen: “es ist gut einmal (im einzelnen Fall) nicht Fleisck zu essen, wenn dadurch Anstoss entstaende”; es handelt sich nicht um dauernde Enthaltung. The aorists are to be understood exactly: eating at one time (italicized by B.-D.), in a given case, where offense would be caused; permanent abstinence is not discussed.

This is borne out by the present tense προσκόπτει, which, as already stated, refers to known cases. It is not contradicted by 1 Cor. 8:13, which states only to what length Paul is ready to go if necessary. It was never necessary for him to go to that length. Paul’s principle is fully stated in 1 Cor. 9:20–23, where he also brings out the fact that he condescends to the weak and to all others, not in order to establish them in their weakness, but to rid them of it. To cause stumbling is not the way to this end, for the weak might be destroyed in his weakness (v. 15); to confirm the weakness by making it the rule for all the strong is again not the way to this end. The way is love that yields so as to enlighten, strengthen, and thus to lift above the weakness. When I abstain, the weak brother must know that I do so only because I am prompted by love, only for his sake, only because his weakness is weakness and not strength, only because I would give him time and help him to grow strong.

Paul adds “wine” to meat. Does this imply that the vegetarians had scruples also about wine? Or were these a separate group? Or does he instance wine only by way of a second example? If a few scrupled about wine, how about the Sacrament? Views differ; all are opinions, because all we have are the three words found here.

Yet, if wine were a real second cause that actually occurred in Rome, one would expect its mention in v. 2 and not indefinitely as “drinking” in the general statement in v. 17 and now at last definitely as “wine” in this statement, where it is followed by the elliptical μηδέ which (B.-D. 480, 1) refers to anything else, which is indefinite and altogether general. The people residing in all the countries in which Paul labored used wine as the commonest drink, do it to this day, because even now in so many places water proves to be dangerous except when it is boiled, as all travelers know, not a few to their hurt.

Romans 14:22

22 After “thy” brother there follows an emphatic “thou.” Thou, what faith thou hast, toward thyself be having it before God! Some would read this as a question because it would be more dramatic: “Thou, hast thou faith? Have it,” etc. But it is rather less dramatic and strong. It also separates the relative from its antecedent. By placing the antecedent before the relative the former is emphasized: “Thou, faith—what thou hast (of it),” etc.

In v. 1 “the faith” is objective as has been shown. Here “faith” (without the article) is subjective but as including the objective faith of Christian truth, in particular also that part of it which produces liberty in all adiaphora for the believer. “What faith thou hast” is the degree of enlightenment, assurance, and confidence regarding this part of Christian doctrine which the person addressed really has. The hint is that, although he is strong in the faith, this person must not suppose that he already has all the enlightenment, all the safe confidence. Why, then, all these admonitions and instructions from the pen of Paul?

The emphasis is on the κατά phrase which denotes direction: “toward thyself be having it before God!” Direct that faith toward thyself, to clear thyself of wrong to thy weak brother, and not toward thy weak brother and the mistaken scruples he still has. The trouble is that we see the other man’s faults and constantly want to doctor him whereas we ourselves still make a good patient. And do it, Paul says, “before God,” as though his eye is resting upon us, so that he may approve—knowing that we must finally appear before his judgment seat.

Blessed he who does not judge himself in what he values! “Happy” is too weak a translation; “truly blessed” in God’s own judgment is the sense. “He who does not judge himself” means he who would not think of acting as his own judge but lets God judge him, ever submits his faith, his convictions, and his actions to the judgments laid down by God in his Word, “in what he values” (see δόκιμος in v. 18), i.e., tests out, and approves and accepts for himself as valuable. Remember the Pharisees who were those that justified themselves (Luke 16:15), acted as judges in their own case, and, of course, acquitted themselves. The strong are too prone to this weakness because they are strong in some degree. But it is a bad weakness (κακόν, not καλόν in God’s sight, v. 20, 21) to set a weak brother at nought (v. 3, 10), for instance, “despite thereby placing a stumbling block” for someone else (v. 20). No, no; in anything regarding yourself never trust your own judgment, get God’s judgment, and be sure that you get it, and do not mistake your own judgment for God’s. God has often been made responsible for our sins which we imagined to be a virtue and approved by him.

This beatitude has been strangely misunderstood to mean: “Happy he who is entirely sure of himself, who finds nothing to judge in his use of the adiaphora!” Even Luther translates: der sich kein Gewissen macht in dem, das er annimmt! “It is a rare felicity to have a conscience untroubled by scruples.” Nay; blessed is he who never judges himself in what he values, who has learned never to trust his own judgment regarding any value but ever goes to God’s Word for God’s judgment and regards as valuable only what that judgment approves! And this is good advice for the weak as well as for the strong. There is a mighty sermon in this half-verse.

Romans 14:23

23 But he who wavers in judgment, if he eats, has judgment against him because (he does it) not from faith. And everything that is not from faith is sin. In our translation we imitate the Greek which also forms a climax: μὴκρίνων (v. 22)—διακρινόμενος—κατακέκριται, an annominatio. In the second participle διά = between: wavering between two judgments, whether to eat or not to eat, hence: “he who doubts.” R. 898 calls the perfect “has been judged” futuristic; in 897 gnomic; in W. P. practically a present tense, “stands condemned”; B.-D. 344 regards it as the perfect in general statements as in the classics. We prefer the last. The agent in the passive “has been adversely judged” (condemned) is God; this man “has not merely condemned himself” as some say.

The case is one in which a weak brother, perhaps in order to escape the jibes of the strong, eats despite his scruples. This is what it means to stumble. This, too, is what is meant by the strong placing a stumbling block for the weak, which may even turn out to be a deathtrap (v. 13). His judgment is διά, between, undecided. He lacks knowledge and conviction as to what God’s judgment really is. His own poor judgment is that it is a no; what he sees the other do urges and crowds him into a yes.

So he eats and certainly does so “not from faith,” from a confidence that is divinely grounded. This is his sin, pitiful, indeed, but sin nevertheless, which God must also judge as sin. The greater guilt lies on the strong brother who is guilty of making his weaker brother stumble, but this does not prevent the damage done to the weaker brother, the extent of which may be considerable. In Luther’s famous words at Worms: “It is not safe to do anything against conscience.”

Paul sums up: “Everything that is not from faith is sin.” In other words: “Whether, therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” 1 Cor. 10:32. What is not done from faith cannot be done to the glory of God, cannot be anything but sin although it be only eating or drinking. “Faith” is here the sure conviction that an act accords with God’s will and his Word. A Christian must have that knowledge and that conviction. If he acts, not, indeed, consciously contrary to what he is fully convinced is God’s will, but uncertain, unconvinced that his act accords with God’s will, how can such an act be anything but sin? The very consciousness of uncertainty makes the commission of the act grave. And that applies to “everything,” to all adiaphora, and also to all else, whatever God has commanded or has forbidden.

Not only outright disregard of his will or bold contradiction are sin but also uncertainty in our actions, misgivings, doubts, fears that our actions may be contrary to his will. Then do not act! First make sure of his will. The first sin began with doubt, Gen. 3:1. I may mistake, misread, misapply God’s Word and his will; that is also a sin but one of ignorance. Sins of doubt are more damaging.

Of course, repentance is the cure.

When Paul says that everything that has not its source in faith (ἐκ) is sin, is this to be restricted to the Christian alone and to the matter of the adiaphora alone, namely to faith in this domain? No; it covers this domain only because it is a part of one that is much larger. In the Christian’s whole life only what comes forth as a true fruit of true Christian faith is acceptable to God—all else is sin. Oh, how much is still sin! Vice versa, every sin of ours does not come out of our faith, it comes out of our flesh. If this is true with regard to sin in the Christian, then what about the non-Christian who has no faith at all, who is all flesh?

Augustine’s dictum that the virtues of the heathen are sins will have to stand. Also the teaching that all works that are done before justification are sins. In other words, the use the church has made of this word of Paul’s is correct. Chrysostom may narrow down: “Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand (meaning meat, wine, adiaphora), not of everything”; but he contradicts Paul who says emphatically: πᾶν, “everything.” So also “faith” is not conscience; it is even more than Christian conscience, it is the enlightened Christian conscience with which faith operates. The weak brother also has a Christian conscience but not a properly enlightened one.

Faith, subjective, embraces “the faith,” objective (v. 1); it justifies and saves me and at the same time makes me live and die to the Lord as the Lord’s (v. 7, 8), as a slave whose will is the Lord’s (v. 18). Whatever, in any department of my life, adiaphora being only a small part of this, comes out of this true faith is its genuine fruit, wherein the Father glorified, of which Christ wants us to bring much (John 15:8)—all else is sin.

Some texts transfer 16:25–27 to this place; see a discussion of these verses in our exposition of chapter 16.

L. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament Dritter Band. Die Briefe des Apostels Paulus. 1. An die Roemer. D. Hans Lietzmann. 2. Auflage.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neu-gearbeitete Aufiage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.