'So then every one of us shall give account of himself
to God. 13. Let us not therefore judge one another any
more: but judge this rather, that no man put a
stumblingblock, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's
way. 14. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now
walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy
meat, for whom Christ died. 16. Let not then your good
be evil spoken of: 17. For the kingdom of God is not
meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy
in the Holy Ghost. 18. For he that in these things
serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of
men. 19. Let us therefore follow after the things which
make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify
another. 20. For meat destroy not the work of God. All
things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man
who eateth with offence. 21. It is good neither to eat
flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing
which he alloweth. 23. And he that doubteth is damned
if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin.'--ROMANS xiv. 12-23.
The special case in view, in the section of which this passage is
part, is the difference of opinion as to the lawfulness of eating
certain meats. It is of little consequence, so far as the principles
involved are concerned, whether these were the food which the Mosaic
ordinances made unclean, or, as in Corinth, meats offered to idols.
The latter is the more probable, and would be the more important in
Rome. The two opinions on the point represented two tendencies of
mind, which always exist; one more scrupulous, and one more liberal.
Paul has been giving the former class the lesson they needed in the
former part of this chapter; and he now turns to the 'stronger'
brethren, and lays down the law for their conduct. We may, perhaps,
best simply follow him, verse by verse.
We note then, first, the great thought with which he starts, that of
the final judgment, in which each man shall give account of himself.
What has that to do with the question in hand? This, that it ought to
keep us from premature and censorious judging. We have something more
pressing to do than to criticise each other. Ourselves are enough to
keep our hands full, without taking a lift of our fellows' conduct.
And this, further, that, in view of the final judgment, we should
hold a preliminary investigation on our own principles of action, and
'decide' to adopt as the overruling law for ourselves, that we shall
do nothing which will make duty harder for our brethren. Paul
habitually settled small matters on large principles, and brought the
solemnities of the final account to bear on the marketplace and the
meal.
In verse 13 he lays down the supreme principle for settling the case
in hand. No Christian is blameless if he voluntarily acts so as to
lay a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in another's path. Are
these two things the same? Possibly, but a man may stumble, and not
fall, and that which makes him stumble may possibly indicate a
temptation to a less grave evil than that which makes him fall does.
It may be noticed that in the sequel we hear of a brother's being
'grieved' first, and then of his being 'overthrown.' In any case,
there is no mistake about the principle laid down and repeated in
verse 21. It is a hard saying for some of us. Is my liberty to be
restricted by the narrow scruples of 'strait-laced' Christians? Yes.
Does not that make them masters, and attach too much importance to
their narrowness? No. It recognises Christ as Master, and all His
servants as brethren. If the scrupulous ones go so far as to say to
the more liberal, 'You cannot be Christians if you do not do as we
do' then the limits of concession have been reached, and we are to do
as Paul did, when he flatly refused to yield one hair's-breadth to
the Judaisers. If a man says, You must adopt this, that, or the other
limitation in conduct, or else you shall be unchurched, the only
answer is, I will not. We are to be flexible as long as possible, and
let weak brethren's scruples restrain our action. But if they insist
on things indifferent as essential, a yet higher duty than that of
regard to their weak consciences comes in, and faithfulness to Christ
limits concession to His servants.
But, short of that extreme case, Paul lays down the law of curbing
liberty in deference to 'narrowness.' In verse 14 he states with
equal breadth the extreme principle of the liberal party, that
nothing is unclean of itself. He has learned that 'in the Lord
Jesus.' Before he was 'in Him,' he had been entangled in cobwebs of
legal cleanness and uncleanness; but now he is free. But he adds an
exception, which must be kept in mind by the liberal-minded
section--namely, that a clean thing is unclean to a man who thinks it
is. Of course, these principles do not affect the eternal
distinctions of right and wrong. Paul is not playing fast and loose
with the solemn, divine law which makes sin and righteousness
independent of men's notions. He is speaking of things
indifferent--ceremonial observances and the like; and the modern
analogies of these are conventional pieces of conduct, in regard to
amusements and the like, which, in themselves, a Christian man can do
or abstain from without sin.
Verse 15 is difficult to understand, if the 'for' at the beginning is
taken strictly. Some commentators would read instead of it a simple
'but' which smooths the flow of thought. But possibly the verse
assigns a reason for the law in verse 13, rather than for the
statements in verse 14. And surely there is no stronger reason for
tender consideration for even the narrowest scruples of Christians
than the obligation to walk in love. Our common brotherhood binds us
to do nothing that would even grieve one of the family. For instance,
Christian men have different views of the obligations of Sunday
observance. It is conceivable that a very 'broad' Christian might see
no harm in playing lawn-tennis in his garden on a Sunday; but if his
doing so scandalised, or, as Paul says, 'grieved' Christian people of
less advanced views, he would be sinning against the law of love if
he did it.
There are many other applications of the principle readily suggested.
The principle is the thing to keep clearly in view. It has a wide
field for its exercise in our times, and when the Christian
brotherhood includes such diversities of culture and social
condition. And that is a solemn deepening of it, 'Destroy not with
thy meat him for whom Christ died.' Note the almost bitter emphasis
on 'thy,' which brings out not only the smallness of the
gratification for which the mischief is done, but the selfishness of
the man who will not yield up so small a thing to shield from evil
which may prove fatal, a brother for whom Christ did not shrink from
yielding up life. If He is our pattern, any sacrifice of tastes and
liberties for our brother's sake is plain duty, and cannot be
neglected without selfish sin. One great reason, then, for the
conduct enjoined, is set forth in verse 15. It is the clear dictate
of Christian love.
Another reason is urged in verses 16 to 18. It displays the true
character of Christianity, and so reflects honour on the doer. 'Your
good' is an expression for the whole sum of the blessings obtained by
becoming Christians, and is closely connected with what is here meant
by the 'kingdom of God.' That latter phrase seems here to be
substantially equivalent to the inward condition in which they are
who have submitted to the dominion of the will of God. It is 'the
kingdom within us' which is 'righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost.' What have you won by your Christianity? the Apostle in
effect says, Do you think that its purpose is mainly to give you
greater licence in regard to these matters in question? If the most
obvious thing in your conduct is your 'eating and drinking,' your
whole Christian standing will be misconceived, and men will fancy
that your religion permits laxity of life. But if, on the other hand,
you show that you are Christ's servants by righteousness, peace, and
joy, you will be pleasing to God, and men will recognise that your
religion is from Him, and that you are consistent professors of it.
Modern liberal-minded brethren can easily translate all this for
to-day's use. Take care that you do not give the impression that your
Christianity has its main operation in permitting you to do what your
weaker brethren have scruples about. If you do not yield to them, but
flaunt your liberty in their and the world's faces, your advanced
enlightenment will be taken by rough-and-ready observers as mainly
cherished because it procures you these immunities. Show by your life
that you have the true spiritual gifts. Think more about them than
about your 'breadth,' and superiority to 'narrow prejudices.' Realise
the purpose of the Gospel as concerns your own moral perfecting, and
the questions in hand will fall into their right place.
In verses 19 and 20 two more reasons are given for restricting
liberty in deference to others' scruples. Such conduct contributes to
peace. If truth is imperilled, or Christ's name in danger of being
tarnished, counsels of peace are counsels of treachery; but there are
not many things worth buying at the price of Christian concord. Such
conduct tends to build up our own and others' Christian character.
Concessions to the 'weak' may help them to become strong, but flying
in the face of their scruples is sure to hurt them, in one way or
another.
In verse 15, the case was supposed of a brother's being grieved by
what he felt to be laxity. That case corresponded to the
stumbling-block of verse 13. A worse result seems contemplated in
verse 20,--that of the weak brother, still believing that laxity was
wrong, and yet being tempted by the example of the stronger to
indulge in it. In that event, the responsibility of overthrowing what
God had built lies at the door of the tempter. The metaphor of
'overthrowing' is suggested by the previous one of 'edifying.'
Christian duty is mutual building up of character; inconsiderate
exercise of 'liberty' may lead to pulling down, by inducing to
imitation which conscience condemns.
From this point onwards, the Apostle first reiterates in inverse
order his two broad principles, that clean things are unclean to the
man who thinks them so, and that Christian obligation requires
abstinence from permitted things if our indulgence tends to a
brother's hurt. The application of the latter principle to the
duty of total abstinence from intoxicants for the sake of others is
perfectly legitimate, but it is an application, not the direct
purpose of the Apostle's injunctions.
In verses 22 and 23, the section is closed by two exhortations, in
which both parties, the strong and the weak, are addressed. The
former is spoken to in verse 22, the latter in verse 23. The strong
brother is bid to be content with having his wider views, or
'faith'--that is, certainty that his liberty is in accordance with
Christ's will. It is enough that he should enjoy that conviction,
only let him make sure that he can hold it as in God's sight, and do
not let him flourish it in the faces of brethren whom it would
grieve, or might lead to imitating his practice, without having risen
to his conviction. And let him be quite sure that his conscience is
entirely convinced, and not bribed by inclination; for many a man
condemns himself by letting wishes dictate to conscience.
On the other hand, there is a danger that those who have scruples
should, by the example of those who have not, be tempted to do what
they are not quite sure is right. If you have any doubts, says Paul,
the safe course is to abstain from the conduct in question. Perhaps a
brother can go to the theatre without harm, if he believes it right
to do so; but if you have any hesitation as to the propriety of
going, you will be condemned as sinning if you do. You must not
measure your corn by another man's bushel. Your convictions, not his,
are to be your guides. 'Faith' is used here in a somewhat unusual
sense. It means certitude of judgment. The last words of verse 23
have no such meaning as is sometimes extracted from them; namely,
that actions, however pure and good, done by unbelievers, are of the
nature of sin. They simply mean that whatever a Christian man does
without clear warrant of his judgment and conscience is sin to him,
whatever it is to others.