Romanos 14:14 Comentário

The apostle having, in the former chapter, directed our conduct one towards another in civil things, and prescribed the sacred laws of justice, peaceableness, and order, to be observed by us as members of the commonwealth, comes in this and part of the following chapter in like manner to direct our demeanour one towards another in sacred things, which pertain more immediately to conscience and religion, and which we observe as members of the church. Particularly, he gives rules how to manage our different apprehensions about indifferent things, in the management of which, it seems, there was something amiss among the Roman Christians, to whom he wrote, which he here labours to redress. But the rules are general, and of standing use in the church, for the preservation of that Christian love which he had so earnestly pressed in the foregoing chapter as the fulfilling of the law. It is certain that nothing is more threatening, nor more often fatal, to Christian societies, than the contentions and divisions of their members. By these wounds the life and soul of religion expire. Now in this chapter we are furnished with the sovereign balm of Gilead; the blessed apostle prescribes like a wise physician. "Why then is not the hurt of the daughter of my people recovered," but because his directions are not followed? This chapter, rightly understood, made use of, and lived up to, would set things to rights, and heal us all.

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

I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,.... As for the apostle's own sense and judgment about the distinction of meats, it was this, that there is nothing unclean of itself; that every creature, as originally made by God, is good; that what is eatable, or fit for food, may be eaten, whatever the Mosaic laws, being now abrogated, say to the contrary; and that whatever physical or natural difference there may be between the creatures of God, one being naturally fit for food, and another not; yet there is no moral distinction between them, there is nothing in any of them that can morally defile a man by eating them; nor indeed is there now any ceremonial distinction between them, and so no ceremonial pollution by them. This was not a bare conjecture, nor a mere opinion, but a point of certain knowledge, a matter of faith, and of full assurance of faith; the apostle was thoroughly persuaded of the truth of it, and had not the least doubt nor difficulty in his mind about it; he was as fully assured of it, as he was of his salvation by Christ, and of his interest in the love of God, from which he could never be separated, and therefore expresses it in language equally as strong; and this he came to the knowledge and persuasion of, "by the Lord Jesus"; by his express words, Mat 15:11; or by a revelation from him, in which way he had the whole Gospel: he might be informed of this matter in like manner as Peter was, by a vision from heaven, Act 10:10, or he knew this through the abrogation of the whole ceremonial law by Christ, who abolished the law of commandments contained in ordinances, and so these laws relating to the difference of meats among the rest; and he knew, that all the creatures in their original creation were good, and though cursed, for man's sake yet Christ had removed the curse, and sanctified them for the use of his people, who, under the Gospel dispensation, might make use of them at pleasure, without distinction: and the Jews themselves own, that what before was unclean, shall in the days of the Messiah be clean: so they explain Psa 146:7; "the Lord looseth the prisoners", which they would render, "the Lord looseth that which was forbidden"; and give this as the sense (r). "every beast which was unclean in this world (the Jewish state), , "God will cleanse it in the time to come" (in the times of the Messiah), when they shall be clean as at the first, to the sons of Noah.'' So they observe, that the Hebrew word for a hog, comes from which signifies to return; because, say they (s), hereafter God will cause it to return to the Israelites; and even now, as formerly, they allow of eating anything that is torn, or dies of itself, or hog's flesh to an army entering into a Gentile country, and subduing it, where they can find nothing else (t): but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean; such a man that thinks the laws concerning clean and unclean meats are still in force, and binding upon him, ought to refrain from eating them; because he would act contrary to his conscience, and so violate and defile it; wherefore though the apostle was so fully satisfied in his own, mind, yet he would not have weak and scrupulous consciences do themselves any hurt through his faith; for if they ate doubtingly, and without faith, it was an evil. Capellus (u) mentions a rule laid down by the Jews, but does not direct where it is to be found, nor have I yet met with it, very agreeable to this of the apostle's, which runs thus: "this is the grand general rule in the law, that every thing which thou dost not know, "whether it is lawful or unlawful, to thee it is unlawful", until thou hast asked a wise men concerning who may teach thee that it is lawful.'' (r) Bereshit Rabba in Maji Synops. Jud. Theolog. p. 224. R. Moses Hadarsan in Galatin. de Arcan. Cathol. ver. l. 11. c. 12. p. 699. (s) Abarbinel. Rosh Amana, c. 13. fol. 18. 2. (t) Maimon. Hilch. Melacim, c. 8. sect. 1. (u) In loc.

It is evident that all these foods enjoy again the blessings they received at their creation, now that the law has ended. We must not return to the legal prohibition of foods commanded for certain reasons and which evangelical liberty, setting us free from its bondage, has now discontinued.

After first rebuking the person who judgeth his brother, and moving him to leave off this reproaching, he then explains himself further upon the doctrinal part, and instructs in a dispassionate tone the weaker sort, displaying in this case too a great deal of gentleness. For he does not say he shall be punished, nor anything of the sort, but merely disburdens him of his fears in the matter, and that with a view to his being more easily persuaded with what he tells him; and he says, "I know, and am persuaded." And then to prevent any of those who did not trust him saying, And what is it to us if thou art persuaded? for thou art no trustworthy evidence to be set in competition with so great a law, and with oracles brought down from above, he proceeds, "in the Lord." That is, as having learned from Him, as having my confidence from Him. The judgment then is not one of the mind of man. What is it that thou art persuaded of and knowest? Tell us. "That there is nothing unclean of itself." By nature, he says, nothing is unclean but it becomes so by the spirit in which a man uses it. Therefore it becomes so to himself only, and not to all. "For to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." What then? Why not correct thy brother, that he may think it not unclean? Why not with full authority call him away from this habit of mind and conception of things, that he may never make it common? My reason is, he says, I am afraid to grieve him.

Christ had said: “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man but what comes out of the mouth—this defiles a man.” This applies to food as well.

This means that nothing is common or unclean when eaten with faith in Christ.

Paul is not saying here that there is anything which is unclean but that for someone with a tender conscience things do become unclean, for even after coming to faith in Christ he is still judging according to Jewish custom.

Having taught that one must not reproach the weak, he finally teaches about food and instructs the weaker person not to fear or dread it as unclean. I, he says, know and am convinced not by human reasoning, but in the Lord Jesus, that is, having been taught and assured by the Lord Jesus, "that nothing is unclean in itself," that is, nothing is unclean by nature, but becomes unclean from the intention of the one who uses it. For him alone it is both defiled and unclean, and not for all.

Second, he teaches that what was considered a stumbling block was of its very nature and in itself lawful. In regard to this it should be noted that, as was stated above, there were among the Romans some Jews converted to Christ, who distinguished among foods according to the law; but others, having a perfect faith, used all foods without distinction, which of itself was lawful. Hence he says: I know and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common of itself. On this point it should be known, as Jerome says in his Commentary on Matthew, that the Jewish people, boasting that they are God's portion, call unclean the food which all men use, e.g., the flesh of swine, hares, and food of that sort. Furthermore, the nations which used such foods were not God's portion; consequently, such food was unclean. The words nothing is common amount to the same thing as saying nothing is unclean. The Apostle says that nothing is unclean, because he knows that it is so according to the nature of things, as he says in 1 Timothy: everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4). Second, he says that he is persuaded in Christ Jesus that in itself nothing is unclean, namely, because foods of their very nature never were unclean, but they were avoided for a time as unclean in keeping with a commandment of the law as a figure. But Christ removed this by fulfilling all figures. Therefore, the Apostle, relying on his confidence in the Lord Jesus, asserts that nothing is common or unclean of itself: what God has cleansed, you must not call common (Acts 10:15). Third, he shows how this could be unlawful accidentally, inasmuch as it is against the conscience of the eater. Hence he says: It has been stated that nothing is common; but it must be understood that if one has an erroneous conscience and thinks that some food is unclean, then for him it is common and so it is unlawful for him, as if the food were really unclean: to the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15). So it is clear that something licit in itself becomes illicit for one who does it against his conscience, even though his conscience is erroneous. It is reasonable that this be so, for acts are judged according to the will of the performer. But the will is moved by the thing apprehended. Hence the will tends toward what the apprehensive power represents to it, and it is according to this that the action is qualified or specified. Therefore, if a person's reason judges that something is sinful and the will is drawn to it as something to be done, it is clear that the person has a will to commit a sin. For this reason his external action, which is informed from the will, is a sin. For the same reason, if one thinks that something venially sinful is a mortal sin, if he does it while his conscience is in that state, it is clear that he has chosen to sin mortally; consequently, his action is a mortal sin on account of his choice. But if someone afterwards has an erroneous conscience through which he believes that something lawful he did was a sin, or something venial was mortal, it is not on that account a sin or mortal, because the will and the action are not informed by a succeeding apprehension but by the one preceding the will and the action. There is no doubt about what we have said, but there can be doubt whether if someone has an erroneous conscience whereby he believes that something which is a mortal sin is necessary for salvation; for example, if he thinks that he is sinning mortally, unless he steals or fornicates, should such a conscience bind him, so that if he acted against it, he would sin mortally. It would seem that he would not be bound. First, because God's law, which forbids stealing and fornication, bind him more strongly than conscience. Second, because this position would put him in a perplexed state, for he would sin by fornicating and by not fornicating. The answer is that an erroneous conscience binds, even in matters evil in themselves. For conscience, as has been said, binds to such an extent that from the fact that one acts against his conscience, it follows that he has the will to sin. Therefore, if someone believes that not to fornicate is a sin and chooses not to fornicate, he chooses to sin mortally; and so he sins mortally. This also applies to what the Apostle says here. For it is clear that distinguishing among foods as though necessary for salvation was unlawful, because even before the spreading of the Gospel, it was not lawful for the converted Jews to observe the practices of the law by putting their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation, as Augustine said above. Yet the Apostle says here that if a person's conscience compels him to distinguish between foods, i.e., to regard some food as unclean, and he does not distinguish among them, i.e., by abstaining from them, he sins as though he were eating unclean food. And so an erroneous conscience obliges, even in matters that are per se illicit. The answer to the first objection about the law of God is that the binding force of even an erroneous conscience and that of the law of God are the same. For conscience does not dictate something to be done or avoided, unless it believes that it is against or in accordance with the law of God. For the law is applied to our actions only by means of our conscience. The answer to the second objection is that nothing forbids a person to be perplexed in certain circumstances, although no one is perplexed absolutely. For example, a fornicating priest sins mortally whether he celebrates Mass or does not celebrate, when he is obliged by his office. Yet absolutely speaking, he is not perplexed, because he can confess and then celebrate. Similarly, someone can get rid of an erroneous conscience and abstain from sin. There is still another difficulty. For one is not said to place a stumbling block by doing a good work, even though someone takes the good work as a stumbling block, as Matthew says that the Pharisees took the words of Jesus as a stumbling block (Matt 15:12). But not to discriminate among foods is a good work; therefore, it should not be avoided just because someone with an erroneous conscience makes a stumbling block of it. For according to this, Catholics would have to abstain from meat and marriage to prevent heretics from being offended according to their erroneous conscience. The answer is that someone can place a stumbling block before another not only by doing something evil but also by doing something which has the appearance of evil: abstain from all appearances of evil (1 Thess 5:22). Now something is said to have the appearance of evil in two ways: first, according to the opinion of those cut off from the Church; second, according to the opinion of those still tolerated by the Church. But those weak in faith, considering that the practices of the law should be observed, were still tolerated by the Church before the spread of the Gospel. Therefore, foods forbidden by the law were not to be eaten, if they were a stumbling block. Heretics, however, are not tolerated by the Church; therefore, this reasoning does not apply to them.

I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus - After reasoning so long and so much with these contending parties on the subject of their mutual misunderstandings, without attempting to give any opinion, but merely to show them the folly and uncharitableness of their conduct, he now expresses himself fully, and tells them that nothing is unclean of itself, and that he has the inspiration and authority of Jesus Christ to say so; for to such an inspiration he must refer in such words as, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus. And yet, after having given them this decisive judgment, through respect to the tender, mistaken conscience of weak believers, he immediately adds: But to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean; because if he act contrary to his conscience, he must necessarily contract guilt; for he who acts in opposition to his conscience in one case may do it in another, and thus even the plain declarations of the word of God may be set aside on things of the utmost importance, as well as the erroneous though well-intentioned dictates of his conscience, on matters which he makes of the last consequence; though others who are better taught know them to be indifferent. It is dangerous to trifle with conscience, even when erroneous; it should be borne with and instructed; it must be won over, not taken by storm. Its feelings should be respected because they ever refer to God, and have their foundation in his fear. He who sins against his conscience in things which every one else knows to be indifferent, will soon do it in those things in which his salvation is most intimately concerned. It is a great blessing to have a well-informed conscience; it is a blessing to have a tender conscience; and even a sore conscience is infinitely better than none.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED--CHRISTIAN FORBEARANCE. (Rom. 14:1-23) Him that is weak in the faith--rather, "in faith"; that is, not "him that is weak in the truth believed" [CALVIN, BEZA, ALFORD, &c.], but (as most interpreters agree), "him whose faith wants that firmness and breadth which would raise him above small scruples." (See on Rom 14:22-23). receive ye--to cordial Christian fellowship. but not to doubtful disputations--rather, perhaps, "not to the deciding of doubts," or "scruples;" that is, not for the purpose of arguing him out of them: which indeed usually does the reverse; whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and cordial interchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way of drawing them off. Two examples of such scruples are here specified, touching Jewish meats and days. "The strong," it will be observed, are those who knew these to be abolished under the Gospel; "the weak" are those who had scruples on this point.

I know, and am persuaded by--or rather, "in" the Lord Jesus--as "having the mind of Christ" (Co1 2:16). that there is nothing unclean of itself--Hence it is that he calls those "the strong" who believed in the abolition of all ritual distinctions under the Gospel. (See Act 10:15). but--"save that" to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean--"and therefore, though you can eat of it with out sin, he cannot."