Romans 14:13-15

Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block …, in his brother’s way.

Limitations of Christian liberty

It is limited--

I. In its extent; by a tender regard for the weak. Love--

1. Avoids offence.

2. Respects the convictions of others.

3. Denies itself.

II. In its object; the furtherance of the kingdom of God.

1. By guarding against reproach.

2. By esteeming spiritual blessings above all others.

3. By promoting the work of God in others.

III. In its rule of action; faith.

1. Allows only what faith permits.

2. Avoids what faith does not endorse. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The voluntary limitation of Christian liberty

I. Its extent. It--

1. Avoids offence.

2. Yields its conscious right for the sake of others.

3. Guards against the appearance of evil.

II. Its encouragements.

1. The kingdom of God suffers no disadvantage.

2. The weak brother is spared.

3. Private conviction and action are not sacrificed. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Things indifferent

I. What things are indifferent? Things--

1. Not forbidden.

2. That have in themselves no moral value.

3. That are clearly ascertained as such by an enlightened conscience.

II. When do they cease to be so?

1. When they become a stumbling-block to others.

2. When they infringe the law of love.

3. When they oppose the work of Christ--when they occasion reproach. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

In guarding against offence we must take care

1. To preserve our personal liberty.

2. Not to violate the law of love. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Personal responsibility

In the early part of his letter to the Romans the apostle expounds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion. In this latter part he applies these doctrines to the problems and duties of daily life. In the Roman Church he is confronted, as ministers of the gospel are confronted even to the present day, with two antagonistic parties, the legal and the spiritual, the conservative and the liberal, or, as he terms them, the weak and the strong. How to reconcile these two parties in the one Christian Church is the problem which engages the attention of him who has the care of all the Churches. A recognition of the Lord’s authority, a desire to execute the Lord’s purpose, and a confession of the Lord’s goodness, characterise both parties. But while there is good on both sides, there are on both sides manifestations of evil. A spirit of uncharitableness is seen in the judgments of both, and to this the apostle directs his teaching as he urges the exhortation, “Let us not therefore judge one another any more.”

1. The first argument against this habit of uncharitable criticism is found in the truth that judgment belongs unto God, man being incompetent to render it. “Why dost thou judge thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.” The Omniscient alone is competent to judge.

(1) We have not sufficient knowledge of the mind of the Master to determine the standard of action. “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?” My conception is my working standard. It is the Master’s commission to me. His word to my brother may be different. We may move in opposite directions and yet both fulfil the purpose of one controlling mind. Let me be assured that my feet are planted on the truth, but let me beware how I deny that my brother stands upon the truth because he does not occupy the same square-foot of ground on which I stand. No man has a monopoly of truth.

(2) Again, we are incompetent to judge because we have not sufficient knowledge of the mind of the fellow-servant to determine the motive with which his action is performed. “Let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for the Lord hath received him.” Ofttimes man can look no farther than the outward appearance. God looketh upon the heart. He weighs the motive. Yet, spite of their incompetence, how free men are to usurp this Divine prerogative of judgment! Without God’s knowledge, without God’s love, they are quick to condemn. Before the bar of God each is responsible for himself alone.

2. In this solemn fact the apostle finds his second argument against the habit of judging others. “Each one of us shall give account of himself to God: let us not, therefore, judge one another any more.” God does not hold us responsible for our brother’s action; but He does hold us responsible for our influence upon him. The large demands of the Divine Judge upon the Christian in relation to his brethren, the apostle now urges especially upon the strong. There is reason in making the application especially to the strong, for in the matters under discussion they alone have freedom of choice. The strong Christian may eat or forbear eating. He may observe the day or not observe the day. The weak, however, in his present moral condition, has no choice. To those who have the larger opportunity the truth is the more broadly applied. But we are not obliged to think that the entire doctrine of the relation of the strong to the weak is set forth in this chapter. Were that the case it might seem as if Paul exalted the weak man’s conscience to a place of tyranny. This surely is not his teaching. Truth is supreme. Opinion can never usurp her throne. If the weak brother’s opinion is not the truth, his position is open to attack, and in the fuller presentation of the truth it may be necessary to oppose it. Paul himself was constantly leading in such opposition. Not only may the position of the weak brother be attacked; there are times when his scruples have to be disregarded. They may always be disregarded by you when they are opposed to a clear conviction of your duty. “Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” and he need not, he must not desist out of regard for another’s conscience. But if, after sufficient and candid study, he is fully assured that it is his duty to act, he must act, however his action may grieve his weaker brother. Even in matters which may be termed indifferent, the scruples of the weak brother may deserve to be set aside. Paul himself is our example. To him circumcision is nothing. At one time, on account of the Jews, he circumcises Timothy. At another time, when certain came to spy out the Christian’s liberty and to bring him into bondage, he refuses to circumcise Titus. To these he “gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue” with the Christian disciples. There are, therefore, grounds on which the position of the weak brother may be attacked and his scruples disregarded. Nevertheless, there are grounds on which the position of the weaker brother must be respected, and his scruples receive special regard. “If because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer according to love.” My act is not right simply because it does not harm me. As a child of God I must look upon the things of others. Christianity is satisfied with no standard but that of love. If this is true Christian doctrine the application in Christian ethics is clear. Justice is conformity to a standard; the Christian standard of life is the loving nature of God. I cannot therefore be just in the Christian sense unless I have love. Not what is good for me alone, nor what is good for my brother alone, but what is best for all, is to determine my action as a child of God. But the law of love is not satisfied with the attainment of anything less than the best good of all. There are many goods. They are of divers values. Freedom in eating and drinking is a good, but this is not the highest good which Christianity has to bestow. “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The man who, in his zeal to establish the right to eat and drink, or the right to the free observance to a religious day, cares not how much he disturbs the peace, diminishes the joy, and undermines the righteousness of his brethren, really places the minor above the major, the subordinate above the supreme. In seeking a good, he misses the best good of the kingdom of God. But the strong may say in way of defence: Inasmuch as nothing is unclean of itself, may we not encourage other to imitate us in customs which are not opposed to any law of righteousness? No, says the apostle, not so long as the weak brother considers the thing unclean, or the act unrighteous. The end of Christianity is not right conduct, viewed apart from its motive, but virtuous character. Christianity has not attained its ideal when certain legal decrees have been obeyed, but only when certain moral experiences have been evoked. A merely legal system might be satisfied with formally correct conduct, but a vital religion demands a godly character. The teaching is sharp and decisive. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Whatsoever is done without consent of the moral nature, whatsoever is done contrary to what one believes to be right, is sin. This is striking doctrine. But does not our best ethics confirm this view? Do we not frequently see the unhappy results of submission to precepts which may be right, and yet are in opposition to the beliefs of the heart? In such submission the man surrenders his freedom, the birthright of moral manhood. He submits to the rule of his fellow-men. In opposition to the teaching of Christ, “Call no man master,” he yields his sovereignty and lets others lay down the law of his life. Whatsoever is not of faith is of foreign dictation. It is the act of the bondman, not of the freeman. By such conformity the man benumbs his sense of obligation. It is this sense which binds him to the eternal truth. It is like the cable which holds the buoy to its moorings. The sense of obligation is the one assuring evidence that God has not forgotten us. This binds us to the eternal throne. Like the clue which Ariadne gave to Theseus, it leads through devious ways out into the world of light, of life, and of love; it leads to the throne, to the feet, to the heart of God. Lose this thread and the soul is left alone, “in wandering mazes lost.” Cherish your own sense of obligation; beware how you injure another’s. More fundamentally still, the performance of an act which is contrary to the soul’s belief, to which the consent of the moral nature is not given, is essentially subordination of the impulse to live for others to the impulse to live for one’s self. The teachings of this chapter become intelligible in proportion as we come to understand the end which Christianity seeks to attain. Christianity aims not simply to cause our actions to conform to a certain legal standard, but rather to make us partake of the nature and thus of the blessed experiences of the ever-blessed God. (T. D. Anderson.)

Personal responsibility

The discussion which we reach in this part of the Epistle to the Romans turns not on great and plain matters of righteousness and equity, on which there can be but one opinion. It is not aimed against our judging a wrong to be what it is, for how can we help condemning the violator of law? but it all has reference to daily questions where there is no positive rule for any one but such as grows up in the community and shifts with changing circumstances. The private conscience properly asks, Is this right for me? The social conscience asks, Is this right, all things considered? So the well-trained moral sense of the Christian is broad in its scope and unselfish in its utterances. Practical duties in the New Testament are seen to be the sequence of sublime truths. We see that there could not help being wide differences in temperament and attainments among such converts, and that many serious complications might arise in their attempts to walk according to the new Way of life. It is so everywhere in modern times in the missionary fields. We can see, from our own selves, how strong the temptation would be to “take positions upon such matters where there was no, “Thus saith the Lord,” and where for that very reason men grow pugnaciously sure. First of all we note that while he places himself on the side of the strong and says that nothing is unclean of itself, he does not try to change the feelings of either party for the sake of a dull and heartless uniformity of practice. He does not turn to the weak brother and say to him, Give up your absurd scruples! or belabour him with proofs that he ought to be free from the law. Nor does he say to the strong, You have no right to a freedom upon things not free to others! Give up your liberty for the common good! On the contrary, he tells him to keep his faith as to all these things and have it before God. And for the establishment of this he sets up a great landmark in morals. We are personally accountable for ourselves unto God, and are never called upon to sit in judgment upon others who are the servants of the same God and show the fruits of the Spirit in their lives. Of course we must condemn wickedness wherever we behold it. While we are our brother’s keeper and owe him a debt of loving care and sympathetic influence, we are not his overseer, divinely set up to regulate every attitude of his mind and the small details of his conduct. Christian love may degenerate into officiousness. The apostle shows that we ought to cultivate a regard for another’s conscience all the more if it is weak. God is speaking through it. To him that esteemeth a thing to be profane, to him it is profane. By your inconsiderate freedom, he says, you may actually destroy your brother who will stand by your side at the judgment-seat and for whom Christ died. But besides this, love is more than liberty. What is liberty? Does not all turn upon the use we make of liberty and the nature of the thing about which we are free? One observation seems proper at this point as to the use of wine. It is of the Lord that Christian sentiment should favour the weaker side everywhere, but the question may fairly arise whether the strong have any rights or any place for the use of their freedom. The words of Paul are clear that if we have faith that gives us liberty we are to hold it before God and not to create a sin for ourselves because another has found one. In the constant movements towards a better social life more and more attention is given to the poor and the oppressed, to the victims of appetite and of evil in all its forms, and more is asked of every Christian to-day in the way of personal sacrifice than ever before. But the practical guide upon a thousand matters of daily conduct, where we ask, Shall we dance? Shall we play cards? Shall we attend the theatre? Shall we visit and ride on the Lord’s Day? is found within these great lessons of the apostle. He says, Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. That “faith” is not the common belief of the Christian, but a regulative principle derived from the Word of God and the practices of His people. For us, then, if serious questions arise, let there be a simple rule. We can abstain. We can be safe. We can place ourselves where no act of ours can by any possibility destroy the delicate bloom of another’s faith, and where we give up a trifle and have a kingdom of peace within! (E. N. Packard.)

Personal rights

Well, is there no other question? Yes, oh yes, there is another question. What is that? It is the great question as to what a man may do with his rights. Paul takes the ground that every man must assert his personal rights. Now the question is, having once shown that I can indulge in such and such pleasures without any harm to me, and with some benefit, shall I go on and indulge in them without any regard to the effect which my indulgence may have on others? “Oh no,” says Paul. “There is no harm in your eating meat dedicated to an idol, but if your brother sees you do it, and, misunderstanding the whole of it, is led conscientiously into wrong, then you do not act wisely or kindly; for you use your right to break down his conscience and his right.” There are two principles in regard to rights. The first is to ascertain and vindicate them, and the next is to subject them to the law of love. There are a great many things that I have a right to, till love comes and says, “Will you not forbear them for the sake of others?” I have a right to eat meat; but for me to do it under circumstances such that my whole household are led to eat it, and they are thrown into a fever, is wrong. For the sake of keeping my children well, I would abstain from eating meat. I have a right to drink wine; but if I found that my drinking wine would lead poorer men to drink whiskey, or the young men around me to drink wine, I would say to myself, “Shall I use a right of mine in such a way as to destroy my fellow-men for whom Christ died? That would not be acting wisely nor well.” (H. W. Beecher.)

Self-denial for others

A friend told me that he was visiting a lighthouse lately, and said to the keeper, “Are you not afraid to live here? it is a dreadful place to be constantly in.” “No,” replied the man, “I am not afraid. We never think of ourselves here.” “Never think of yourselves! How is that?” The reply was a good one. “We know that we are perfectly safe, and only think of having our lamps burning brightly, and keeping the reflectors clear, so that those in danger may be saved.” That is what Christians ought to do. They are safe in a house built on a rock, which cannot be moved by the wildest storm, and in a spirit of holy unselfishness they should let their light gleam across the dark waves of sin, that they who are imperilled may be guided into the harbour of eternal safety. (Sword and Trowel.)

Selfishness

A man is called selfish, not for pursuing his own good, but for neglecting his neighbour’s. (Abp. Whately.)

The sacredness of man

While from the beginning the kindly affections of men’s nature have been largely developed, outside of their own households they have seldom felt themselves under much obligation to men, and outside their acquaintanceship and nation are felt a hundred obligations of aversion. And it is one of the tokens of the Divine inspiration of the truth that “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” has been the declaration of the Divine law from the earliest period. And there is no duty that the Apostle Paul so developed as this. Note--

I. The ground on which he puts men is the ground of their sacredness.

1. Christians are tempted to judge men by standards that are not the highest nor the most Christian.

(1) We are tempted to put value upon men according to their social relationships. A man may be very low in the social scale, and we may be accustomed in measuring him to call him a brute, and worthless, but the man has some other value besides that which consists in his relationship to society.

(2) Nay, a man’s economic value may be nil. There are many who do not produce as much as they eat. They are sick or shiftless, and die useless paupers. And we are apt to speak of them with contempt as being the “dregs of society.”

2. And yet, low as they are, their value may be beyond count.

(1) For every man is God’s creature in a sense that none of the inferior animals are. He is made after the image of God.

(2) More than this, every man is made sacred by what has been done for him. In the old days the colonists were forbidden to manufacture anything for themselves. The privilege of furnishing these things to them was reserved to the Crown. Not only that, but the very timber of the country was sorted out, and wherever a valiant pine or a noble oak, fit for the masts or for the ribs of ships was found, the Broad Arrow was stamped on it. The tree was in no respect different, but when people saw the Broad Arrow they said, “That is the king’s.” Now it is not an arrow, it is a cross that is stamped upon every living soul. For every human being Christ died; and this is made to he the sign and token of the value that is in every man (verse 15).

(3) Again, men are to be greatly respected for their development into immortality. Although there is but very little value in acorns, when they are planted they will become trees; but what they will be when a hundred years have dealt with them no man can tell. And though men, as seeds, are comparatively insignificant, when they shall have been planted again, in a fairer clime and in a better soil, and shall have been under a higher culture, they will then unfold their real and true selves, to which they will not come in their relationship to time and society.

II. It is upon the ground of the value that inheres in men that we must not put any stumbling-block in their way. It is a case in which the highest are to serve the lowest. It is being to men what mothers are to children. What father is there that does not subdue himself to the level of the cradle? Accomplishments, tastes, and liberties are commanded to serve the wants of the little one. We must use our liberty and our strength for men, not them for our strength and liberty.

1. It is right, if a man is worshipping superstitiously, to supplant the superstition by a more rational worship. If I go into a Catholic church, and there stands the font of sacred water by the door, and I perceive one and another dipping their hands in and making the sign of the cross with the utmost reverence, I do not follow their example; I have no need of it; and yet I should abuse my liberty if I were to ridicule the act, or if I were to use my liberty and my intelligence to oppress the consciences of those that were lower and less than I. To a person who performs the act it may seem sacred; and if you cast contempt upon it you may be a violator of what is sacred to him, and therefore you may put a stumbling-block in his way. Idolaters were not treated with disrespect by Christ and His apostles. When Paul stood in the midst of the radiant idols at Athens he never spoke of them in such a way as to wound the feelings of any one who believed in them.

2. It is sometimes said of men, “They do not preach all that they believe.” They would be fools if they did. You might as well say to the mother who has a medicine chest, “Give all the medicine there is in that chest,” as to say to a man, “Preach all that you believe.” A man preaches to build men up. Are you to reproach a man for not putting all the materials for building into every edifice that he constructs? If a man builds of brick he does not think it necessary to exhaust the whole material that the country affords. And a man that teaches is not teaching for the sake of unsettling men. There are those who pile sermon upon sermon the year round, loosening everything, and at last nothing remains. But it is said, “They are bold men.” Yes; and they may do harm with their boldness. “Well, they are honest.” Honesty is a good thing; but even that should be handled prudently. It is better that men should have truth than that they should have delusion and falsity; but it is not wise that the change should be made too abruptly. Where a man has on a filthy garment, it is better that he should wear it than that he should go naked. Don’t take it from him until you have a better one to put in the place of it.

3. A man has a right, in the employment of his wealth, to have regard for the comfort and refinement of himself and his household. But no man has a right to such a use of wealth as shall be exclusive and selfish. A man has a right to the use of his property, but he must use it charitably. And, on the other hand, those that are poor are not to rail at rich men, but are to act according to the spirit which is contained in the gospel (verses 2, 3).

4. There are very many pleasures which I avoid, not because I have the slightest conscience respecting the things themselves, or because I suppose they would be otherwise than beneficial to me, but because my example should be such as not to mislead, but lead aright, the young men of the community, who, in looking upon what I did, if I indulged in all those things which were harmless to me, might venture on things that I could do safely, and they could not.

5. This should be carried still further. I hold that there is no one thing that is more perilous to young men than the usages of society in the matter of intoxicating drinks. Nevertheless, if I observe that my brother, in a neighbouring church, holds a contrary view, I have no right of disputation over his conscience. I may wish that he could see as I do; I may even attempt to give him the light that I have; but if, after all, in the exercise of his own judgment and discretion, he says, “I stand in my liberty before God,” I have no right to cast an imputation on him and his liberty. (H. W. Beecher.)

I know …, that there is nothing unclean of itself.

How the same thing may be clean and unclean

I. Nothing is unclean of itself.

1. Every creature of God is good.

2. May be lawfully used.

3. When sanctified by an enlightened conscience.

II. Everything becomes unclean.

1. When abused.

2. When used by him that esteems it unclean. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.--

The duty of sacrificing private enjoyment for another’s benefit

I. The case supposed. The enjoyment though lawful, is a stumbling-block to another.

II. The apostle’s decision of it. It is a violation of the law of love, because selfish in itself, injurious in its effect.

III. The consequent duty. Of abstinence, lest you destroy him for whom Christ died, leaving you an example of self-sacrifice. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.--

Christ’s death, a man’s destruction

I. Christ died to save all. “He is the propitiation … for the sins of the whole world.” His death was a fact in the Divine government in which all are interested, a provision of Divine mercy, like the sun, the air, and the various elements of nature, from which all could derive the same supplies.

II. Though He died to save all, some will be destroyed. The truth has no practical influence on a man unless he studies it, and he may study it or not, rightly or not, the provision does not stream its blessings into a man, irrespective of his choice or efforts. The sun will not give its light to a man unless he open his eyes, nor will the water allay his burning thirst unless he drinks it in. “Ye will not come unto Me,” etc.

III. This destruction may be effected by a brother. One man can and often does spiritually ruin another by his suggestions, his spirit, his example. Whilst God saves man by man the devil damns man by man. Through man the spiritually restorative and destructive forces of the universe are everlastingly working.

IV. The brother may do this by a trifling thing--“meat.” By urging thy ceremonial observances thou art likely to ruin him; leave him free to his own conscience. As an invisible atom can destroy animal life, a little sin can damn a soul. (D. Thomas, D.D.)