Romans 14:1. Δέ] passing over from the due limitation of care for the flesh (Romans 13:14) to those who, in the matter of this limitation, pursue not the right course, but one springing from weakness of faith.

τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα τῇ πίστει] That πίστις here also denotes faith in Christ, is self-evident; the infirmity, however, is not conceived of—according to the general πάντα δυνατὰ τῷ πιστεύοντι (Mark 9:23; 1 Corinthians 13:2)—in a general sense and without any more precise character, but, in conformity with the context (see Romans 14:2; Romans 14:14; Romans 14:22-23), as a want of that ethical strength of faith, in virtue of which one may and should have, along with his faith, the regulative principle of moral conviction and certainty corresponding to its nature and contents. In this more definite and precise sense those ascetics were weak in faith. Had they not been so, the discernment of conscience and assurance of conscience, analogous to faith, would have enabled them to be free from doubt and scruple in respect to that which, in the life of faith, was right or wrong, allowable or not allowable, and to act accordingly; and consequently, in particular, to raise themselves above the adiaphora as such, without prejudice and ethical narrowness. It is therefore evident that the ἀσθένεια τῇ πίστει carries with it defectiveness of moral γνῶσις, but this does not justify the explaining of πίστις as equivalent to γνῶσις (Grotius and others), or as equivalent to doctrine believed (Beza, Calvin).

προσλαμβάνεσθε] take to you, namely, to the intercourse of Christian brotherly fellowship. The opposite would be an ἐκκλεῖσαι θέλειν (comp. Galatians 4:17), whereby they, instead of being attracted, might be forced to separation. So in substance, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Semler, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, Rückert, de Wette, Tholuck, Philippi, Hofmann, etc. But others take it as: interest yourselves in him, “of furthering, helpful support” (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom), which, however, προσλαμβάνεσθαι τινα does not mean. Acts 28:2 is appealed to, where, however, προσλ. is to take to oneself,—a meaning which is here also required by προσελαβετο, Romans 14:3, as well as by Romans 15:7, comp. also Romans 11:15.

μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογ.] not to judgings of thoughts. διακρίσεις διαλογ. is a result, which in the case of the enjoined προσλαμβ. must not be come to, so that thus μὴ εἰς διακρ. διαλ. contains a negative more precise definition of προσλαμβάνεσθε, in the sense, namely: not in such a manner that the προσλαμβάνεσθαι, which you bestow on the weak, issues in judgments passed on the thoughts. Those persons formed their ideas under the influence of conscience; such scruples should be indulgently treated by the stronger, and criticisms passing judgments on them should not be instituted, whereby the προσλαμβάνεσθαι would be abused. Thus διάκρισις, dijudicatio, retains its usual signification (Hebrews 5:4; 1 Corinthians 12:10; Plato, Legg. vi. p. 765 A, xi. p. 937 B; Lucian, Herm. 69); and διαλογισμός likewise (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Luke 9:46, et al.; Romans 1:21; 1 Corinthians 3:20). Nothing is to be supplied, but εἰς is simply to be taken in the sense of the result (as just previously εἰς ἐπιθ., Romans 13:14), not even as usque ad (Reiche). Substantially in agreement with this view of διακρίς. διαλογ. are Chrysostom, Grotius, and others, including Köllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Reithmayr, Fritzsche, Krehl, Tholuck, Hofmann, likewise Reiche, who, however, makes the prohibition apply to both parties, which is opposed to the text, since the exhorted subject is the church, in contradistinction to its weak members, while the weak alone are the object of the exhortation. Augustine aptly, Propos. 78: “non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur.” Others take διακρίσεις as doubts, which are not to be excited in the thoughts of the weak. So Luther, Bengel, Cramer, Ernesti, Morus, Böhme, Ammon, Flatt, Klee, Olshausen, Philippi, Umbreit. But διάκρισις never means doubt, and therefore is not to be explained with Ewald, who takes the words as an addition by way of exclamation: “may it not come from doubts to thoughts! may such an one not become uncertain in his conscience!” Following the Vulgate, Beza, Camerarius, Er. Schmid, Toletus, Estius, Glöckler, and others, διάκρ. has also been explained as dispute, which is not unfrequently its meaning in the classics (Plato, Legg. vi. p. 768 A; Polybius, xviii. 11. 3). But dispute concerning thoughts would be at least far from clearly expressed by the mere genitive (instead of περὶ διαλογ.); and the notion disceptatio [ζήτησις, συζήτησις] is nowhere denoted in the N. T. by ΔΙΆΚΡΙΣΙς. Rückert takes it as separation: “But be on your guard lest the consequence thereof may possibly be this, that thoughts and sentiments are severed, become more abruptly parted.” Διάκρισις may certainly bear this meaning (Job 37:16; Plato, Phil. p. 32 A); but in that case the article must have stood before διαλογ., and the climactic sense (more abruptly) would be gratuitously imported.

Romans 14:1-12. Summons to brotherliness towards the weak ones (Romans 14:1). First point of difference between the two parties, and encouragement in relation to it (Romans 14:2-4). Second point of difference, and encouragement in relation to it (Romans 14:5). The right point of view for both in their differences (Romans 14:6), and reason assigned for it (Romans 14:7-9); reproof and disallowance of the opposite conduct (Romans 14:10-12).Romans 14:1. τὸν δὲ ἀσθενοῦντα: as Godet points out, the part. as opposed to ἀσθενῆ, denotes one who is for the time feeble, but who may become strong. τῇ πίστει: in respect of faith, i.e.—in Paul’s sense of the word—in respect of his saving reliance on Christ and all that it involves: see above. One is weak in respect of faith who does not understand that salvation is of faith from first to last, and that faith is secured by its own entireness and intensity, not by a timorous scrupulosity of conscience. προσλαμβάνεσθαι is often used of God’s gracious acceptance of men, but also of men welcoming other men to their society and friendship, 2Ma 8:1; 2Ma 10:15. μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν: not with a view to deciding (or passing sentence on) his doubts. The διαλογισμοί are the movements of thought in the weak man, whose anxious mind will not be at peace; no censure of any kind is implied by the word. The strong, who welcome him to the fellowship of the Church, are to do so unreservedly, not with the purpose of judging and ruling his mind by their own. For διάκρισεις see 1 Corinthians 12:10, Hebrews 5:14.Ch. Romans 14:1-9. Christian practice: mutual toleration: each individual directly responsible to the Redeemer

1. Him that is weak, &c.] Lit. But him that is weak, &c. The “but” marks a slight contrast with the previous passage. Probably this is q. d., “I have just spoken of vigour and thoroughness in your spiritual life; but let this be such as to leave you gentle and sympathetic with imperfectly-enlightened converts. Be severe with self, gentle with others.”

in the faith] So lit.; but render in his faith. See notes on Romans 12:3; Romans 12:6. Here, as there, a subjective explanation of the word “faith” is better, in view of the usage of this Epistle.

receive you] The Gr. tense is the present, and perhaps indicates (what is otherwise probable) that St Paul means not only the first welcome of a new believer, but the continued welcome—a full recognition ever after of his standing as a Christian. Same word and tense as Romans 15:7.

but not to doubtful disputations] Lit. not to criticisms of (his) scruples. The word “but” is not in the Gr., and changes the exact point of the clause, which is q. d., “receive him, do not criticize him; let him in with a welcome, not with a call to discussion.”—The noun rendered “criticisms” (or its cognate verb) is used (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14;) for detection of differences; and again (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31, E. V. “judge ourselves,”) for judicial enquiry and sentence, literal or figurative. “Criticism” thus fairly represents it in a context like this, where needless keenness in balancing varying convictions, and the consequent sentence of private or public opinion, is in view.—“His scruples”:—same word as Romans 1:21, (E. V. “imaginations,”) where see note. Here it is the reasoning of the mind with itself; doubt and perplexity.

Some general remarks are offered on the subject and the teaching of this chapter.

1. Two passages of St Paul’s writings afford striking likenesses or equally striking contrasts to Romans 14; viz. 1 Corinthians 8, and the Epistle to the Galatians as a whole. In all these three places St Paul has in view differences of opinion within the visible Church. In 1 Corinthians 8, as here, he argues for mutual toleration; in Galatians he lays down, with unbending decision, the line between irreconcilables.Romans 14:1. Ἀσθενοῦντα) The participle is milder than the adjective ἀσθενῆ, weak.—πίστει, in faith) Even still the apostle refers all things to faith.—προσλαμβάνεσθε, receive ye) We have the same word, Romans 14:3, ch. Romans 11:15, Romans 15:7; Philemon 1:17. [Salvation has come to both Jews and Gentiles by faith; therefore neither party should impede the other, but both should afford mutual assistance.—V. g.]—μὴ εἰς, not into) He who urges another to do, what he himself is doing, appears to receive him, but then he receives him so, that his thoughts, διαλογισμοὶ, are driven into [to entertain] doubts, διακρίσεις, so that he cannot in his own feeling on the particular point, be borne along with full satisfaction, πληροφορεῖσθαι [be fully persuaded, Romans 14:5], the word ἀδιαφορεῖν is the antithesis to the word διακρίνειν. He calls them doubts in the thoughts, for those in doubt think more than they speak.Verses 1-23. - F. The duty of enlightened Christians towards weak brethren. From moral duties in general of Christians towards each other and towards all the apostle now passes to such as they owe peculiarly to each other as members of a religious community, united by a common faith. He has already (Romans 12:16) admonished his readers to be "of the same mind one toward another;" but, as was remarked under that verse, this did not imply agreement of view on all subjects, such as is impossible where there are many minds. In this chapter he recognizes the impossibility, having immediately before him what was then patent, the inability of some, through prejudice or slowness of conception, to enter into views of the meaning of the gospel which to himself and the more enlightened were apparent. He by no means departs from what he says elsewhere (cf. Galatians 1:6-10) about no denial of fundamental doctrine being allowable in the communion of the Church; but in matters not touching the foundation he does here inculcate a large and generous tolerance. In these, as in all other relations between men on the earth together, the all-inspiring principle of charity is to rule. Who the "weak brethren" were whose scruples he especially inculcates tolerance of in this chapter cannot be decided positively. It will he seen that they were persons who thought it their duty to abstain from animal food, and perhaps also from wine (vers. 2, 21); and there is allusion also to observance of certain days (ver. 5). The views that have been taken are as follows: -

(1) That they were the same class of Jewish Christians as are spoken of in 1 Corinthians 8. as over-scrupulous about eating of things that had been offered in sacrifice to idols.

(2) That they were such as were scrupulous in avoiding unclean meats, forbidden in the Mosaic Law. (Or, as Erasmus and others suggest, views (1) and (2) may be combined.)

(3) That they were ascetics. In favour of view

(1) is the fact that the drift and tone of the exhortation is exactly the same here as in 1 Corinthians 8, with similarity also of expressions, such as ὁ ἀσθενῶν, ὁ ἐσθίων βρῶσις, βρῶμα, ἀπολύειν πρόσκομμα, σκανδαλίζειν. Against it are the facts

(a) that in the chapter before us there is no allusion whatever to idol-meats, as there is throughout so markedly in 1 Corinthians 8; and

(b) that abstinence from all animal food whatever (and apparently from wine too) is spoken of in this chapter. Objection (a) has been met by saying that the ground of the scrupulosity referred to might be so well known that St. Paul did not think it necessary to mention it when he wrote to the Romans. To objection (b) it is replied that there might be some who, in order to guard against the risk of buying at the shambles, or partaking in general society of viands connected with heathen sacrifices, made a point of abstaining from meat altogether, and (it has been suggested) from wine too, which might have been used in libations. This is the view of Clement of Alexandria, Ambrosiastor, and Augustine, among the ancients. View (2) is that of Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, among whom Chrysostom accounts for the total abstinence from meat as follows: "There were many of the Jews that believed, who, being still bound in conscience to the Law, even after believing still observed the ordinances about meats, not as yet venturing to depart from the Law; and then, in order not to be conspicuous in abstaining from swine's flesh only, they abstained from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that their practice might seem to be rather fasting, and not observance of the Law" (so also OEcumenius and Theophylact). But this seems to be a conjecture only, and hardly a likely one. And further, it fails to account for abstinence from wine, which seems to be implied; on the part of tome at least, in ver. 21. (It may be observed, however, that this is not of necessity implied. Abstinence from meat is all that has been spoken of before, and again in ver. 23; and St. Paul may possibly mean only to say, in ver. 21, that if by abstaining from wine also he could avoid offence to a weak brother, he would willingly so abstain. Still, the natural inference is that he would not have mentioned wine had there not been some who made it a point of conscience to abstain from it.) If the weak brethren were ascetics, according to view (3), it is most probable that they were Jewish Christians who had imbibed the principles of the Essenes. These were a Jewish sect, spoken of especially by josephus, who aimed at scrupulous observance of the Law of Moses, and strict personal purity. With this view they lived in communities under rule, partaking of the simplest fare, and some abstaining from marriage. It does not appear that they were strict vegetarians when living in community; but we are told that they might only eat such meat as had been prepared by their own members, so as to be secure against any pollution, and that, if excommunicated, they were consequently compelled to eat herbs. (For what is known of them, see Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 2; 8:2-5; 'Ant.,' 13:05. 9; 15:10. 4, 5; 18:1. 2, etc.; Philo, 'Quod Omnis Probus Liber,' see. 12, etc.; Pliny, 'Hist. Nat.,' 5:16, 17.) It is far from unlikely that some of these would be attracted to Christianity; and this especially as some of their principles, as described by Josephus, seem to have been endorsed by Christ himself (see art. on "Essenes," in 'Dict. of Christian Biog.,' vol. 2. p. 202); and, if so, they would be likely to carry their prejudices with them into the Church, and, when living outside their original communities, they might abstain entirely from flesh as well as wine. Or it might be that other Jews, Essenic in principle and feeling, had sought admission into the Church. Philo, in Eusebius, 'Praep. Evan.,' 8. fin., and Josephus, 'Vit.,' 2. 3, intimate that supra-legal asceticism, under the influence of Essenic principles, was not uncommon in Judaism in their time. The latter (c. 3) speaks of certain priests, his friends, who were so God-fearing that they subsisted on figs and nuts, and (c. 2) of one Banns, who had been his master, who ate no food but vegetables. What is still more to our purpose is that we find evidence of pious ascetics of the same type subsequently among Christians. Origen ('Contra Cels.,' 5:49) speaks of some as living in his time; and even the apostle St. Matthew, and James the Lord's brother, were afterwards credited with a corresponding mode of life. Clement of Alexandria ('Paedag.' 2:1) says of the former, "Matthew the apostle partook of seeds and acorns and herbs, without flesh." Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (2:23), says of the latter that "he drank not wine or strong drinks, nor did he eat animal food; a razor came not upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil; he did not use the bath." It is to be observed that abstinence from ointments was one of the practices of the Essenes (Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 8:2. 3). Augustine ('Ad Faust.,' 22:3) transmits the same tradition as to the abstinence of James from flesh and wine. Whatever foundation them might be for these traditions, they at any rate show that in the second century, when Hegesippus wrote, abstinence such as is intimated in this chapter was regarded as a mark of superior sanctity by some Christians. Farther, in the 'Apostolical Canons' (Canon 51.), Christians who abstained from marriage, or flesh, or wine, are allowed to be retained in the communion of the Church as long as they did so by way of religious restraint only. Against the above view of the weak brethren of the chapter before us having been ascetics of the Essenic type, is alleged the strong condemnation of persons supposed to have been of the same sort in Colossians 2:8, 16, seq., and 1 Timothy 4:1-5, which is said to be inconsistent with the tender tolerance recommended here. But the teachers referred to in the later Epistles, though inculcating practices similar to those of the "weak brethren," appear to have been heretical theosophists, the germ probably of later Gnosticism. Their tenets may indeed, in part at least, have been developed from Esseuism; but it was no longer mere conscientious scrupulosity, but principles subversive of the faith, that St. Paul set his face against in writing to the Colossians and to Timothy. Canon 51. in the 'Apostolical Canons' above referred to may be adduced as distinguishing between the principles on which asceticism might be practised allowably or otherwise; it being therein laid down that any who abstained from marriage, flesh, or' wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, should be cast out of the Church. It remains to be observed that there was diffused among the Gentiles also, through the influence of the Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, an asceticism similar to the Essenic (see Senec., 'Ep.,' 108, and Porphyr., 'De Abstin.'), which Eichhoru supposes the "weak brethren" of this chapter to have been affected by, regarding them as mostly Gentile Christians. But Jewish influences are much more probable; the scruples referred to in 1 Corinthians 8. were certainly due to them; and observe ver. 5 in this chapter, which cannot but refer to Jewish observances. Further, Origen, in the treatise above referred to, expressly distinguishes between Christian and Pythagorean asceticism. His words are, "But see also the difference of the cause of the abstinence from creatures having life as practised by the Pythagoreans and by the ascetics among ourselves. For they abstain because of the fable concerning the transmigration of souls;... but we, though we may practise the like, do it when we keep under the flesh and bring it into subjection" ('Contra Cels.,' 4). Verse 1. - Him that is weak in the faith (rather, in faith, or in his faith). The article before πίστει does not denote the faith objectively. Cf. Romans 4:19, μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῆ πίστει. In 1 Corinthians 8:12 it is the conscience that is spoken of as weak, τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν. Persons are meant whose faith is not sufficiently strong and enlightened for entering fully into the true spirit of the gospel so as to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials. Receive ye (i.e. take to yourselves with kindness - with reference, it may be, both to persons seeking admission into the Church and to those already in it who could not get rid of their scruples. The verb, which is προσλαμβάνεσθε, occurs in a like sense in Acts 28:2, and Philemon 1:12, 17. It may be regarded here as the opposite of ἐκκλεῖσαι θέλειν of Galatians 4:17), but not to doubtful disputations; rather, unto - i.e., so as to result in - judgments of thoughts. The Authorized Version has in margin, "to judge his doubtful thoughts," which is probably nearer the true meaning than the text. Διαρίσις means elsewhere dijudicartio (1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14), not "disputation" or "doubt" (as has been supposed from the verb διακρίνεσθαι, meaning "to doubt"). "Non dijudicemus cogitationes infirmorum, quasi ferre audeamus sententiam de alieno corde, quod non videtur" (Augustin, 'Prepos.,' 78). Weak in the faith

Probably referring to a class of Jewish Christians with Essenic tendencies. Better, as Rev., in faith, the reference being to faith in Christ, not to christian doctrine. See on Acts 6:7.

Receive ye (προσλαμβάνεσθε)

Into fellowship. See on Matthew 16:22.

Doubtful disputations (διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν)

Lit., judgings of thoughts. The primary meaning of διαλογισμός is a thinking-through or over. Hence of those speculations or reasonings in one's mind which take the form of scruples. See on Mark 7:21. Διάκρισις has the same sense as in the other two passages where it occurs (1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14); discerning with a view to forming a judgment. Hence the meaning is, "receive these weak brethren, but not for the purpose of passing judgment upon their scruples."

Romans 14:1 Interlinear
Romans 14:1 Parallel Texts


Romans 14:1 NIV
Romans 14:1 NLT
Romans 14:1 ESV
Romans 14:1 NASB
Romans 14:1 KJV

Romans 14:1 Bible Apps
Romans 14:1 Parallel
Romans 14:1 Biblia Paralela
Romans 14:1 Chinese Bible
Romans 14:1 French Bible
Romans 14:1 German Bible

Bible Hub