Rom 14:2-6 | Barnes | STEP | 2. For one believeth . This was the case with the Gentiles in general, who had none of the scruples of the Jew about the propriety of eating certain kinds of meat. Many of the converts who had been Jews might also have had the same view--as the apostle Paul evidently had--while the great mass of Jewish converts might have cherished these scruples. May eat all things . That is, he will not be restrained by any scruples about the lawfulness of certain meats, etc. Another, who is weak . There is reference here, doubtless, to the Jewish convert. The apostle admits that he was weak , i.e., not fully established in the views of Christian liberty. The question with the Jew doubtless was, whether it was lawful to eat the meat which was offered in sacrifice to idols. In those sacrifices a part only of the animal was offered, and the remainder was eaten by the worshippers, or offered for sale in the market like other meat. It became an inquiry whether it was lawful to eat this meat; and the question in the mind of a Jew would arise from the express command of his law, . This question the apostle discussed and settled in , which see. In that place the general principle is laid down, that it was lawful to partake of that meat as a man would of any other, unless it was expressly pointed out to him as having been sacrificed to idols , and unless his partaking of it would be considered as countenancing the idolaters in their worship , . But with this principle many Jewish converts might not have been acquainted; or what is quite as probable, they might not have been disposed to admit its propriety. Eateth herbs . Herbs or vegetables only; does not partake of meat at all, for fear of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even ignorantly, they chose to eat no meat at all. The scruples of the Jews on the subject might have arisen in part from the fact, that sins of ignorance among them subjected them to certain penalties, , etc.; . Josephus says, (Life, % 3,) that in his time there were certain priests of his acquaintance who "supported themselves with figs and nuts." These priests had been sent to Rome to be tried on some charge before Caesar; and it is probable that they abstained from meat because it might have been offered to idols. It is expressly declared of Daniel when in Babylon, that he lived on pulse and water, that he might not "defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank," .

Romans 14:2-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For God hath received him. This is the same word that is translated "receive" in Rom 14:1. It means here, that God hath received him kindly; or has acknowledged him as his own friend; or he is a true Christian. These scruples, on the one side or the other, are not inconsistent with true piety; and as God has acknowledged him as his, not-withstanding his opinions on these subjects, so we also ought to recognise him as a Christian brother. Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them. Verse 4. Who art thou, etc. That is, who gave you this right to sit in judgment on others? Comp. Lk 12:14. There is reference here particularly to the Jew, who on account of his ancient privileges, and because he had the law of God, would assume the prerogative of judging in the case, and insist on conformity to his own views. See Acts 15. The doctrine of this epistle is, uniformly, that the Jew had no such privilege, but that in regard to Salvation he was on the same level with the Gentile.

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

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

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

Yea, he shall be holden up. This is spoken of the Christian only. In relation to the servant, he might stand or fall, he might be approved or condemned. The master had no power to keep him in a way of obedience, except by the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment. But it was not so in regard to the Christian. The Jew, who was disposed to condemn the Gentile, might say that he admitted the general principle which the apostle had stated about the servant; that it was just what he was saying, that he might fall, and be condemned. But no, says the apostle, this does not follow in relation to the Christian. He shall not fall. God has power to make him stand; to hold him; to keep him from error, and from condemnation, and he shall be holden up.

He shall not be suffered to fall into condemnation, for it is the purpose of God to keep him. Comp. Ps 1:3. This is one of the incidental but striking evidences that the apostle believed that all Christians should be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.

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

(l) "Who art thou that" Jas 4:12 (m) "God is able" Isa 40:29 Verse 5. One man esteemeth. Gr., judgeth, (κρινει). The word is here properly translated esteemeth. Comp. Acts 13:46, 16:15. The word originally has the idea of separating, and then discerning, in the act of judging. The expression means, that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the Jews uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths as peculiarly sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity.

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

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

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

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

(3.) It is expressly said, that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honour God, Rom 4:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honour, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by neglecting his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to honour the Lord Jesus, and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead this passage as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it, just as it is, i. e., let him neglect the from a conscientious desire to honour Jesus Christ. Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

Let every man, etc. That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were morally wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the Jew esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word "be fully persuaded" denotes the highest conviction--not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination. See Rom 4:21, 2Ti 4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them. Verse 6. He that regardeth. Greek, Thinketh of; or pays attention to; that is, he that observes it as a festival, or as holy time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) "regardeth" or "observeth"