Section III The Fruits of God’s Righteousness

Romans 12:1—15:13

In the doctrinal section just concluded Paul has announced The Gospel of God’s Righteousness, or the way of salvation. This is the way of justification through Christ, whereby the sinner is reconciled to God by faith (cc. 1—5), then sanctified in Christ by the communication of the Spirit (cc. 6—8). As it was Israel’s refusal of God’s proffered righteousness which occasioned their rejection from the Messianic kingdom and the inclusion of the Gentiles therein, so it will be Israel’s future acceptance of this righteousness which will mean their ultimate salvation (cc. 9”11). But what are The Fruits of God’s Righteousness? What is the life of salvation? Paul sketches his answer in this practical section. In cc. 12—13 he makes a general application of agape love as the characteristic principle of the Christian life, pointing out how this principle manifests itself both within and outside the Christian fellowship. Paul’s language in these chapters shows an indebtedness to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, and an impressive list of parallels can be drawn up between cc. 12—13 and the Sermon on the Mount. He then applies the agape principle to the problem of differences of religious opinion within the Christian fellowship (14:1—15:13).

These two major divisions of the Epistle correspond to the distinction between kerygma (the proclamation of God’s salvation in Christ) and didache (instruction given to believers, particularly in the area of ethics) found throughout the NT. Repeatedly in Paul’s letters doctrinal exposition is followed by ethical instruction.¹ But here, as in Ephesians (cf. Eph. 4:1), the transition from doctrine to exhortation is definite and, one might almost say, abrupt.²

It is imperative, however, that we grasp the vital relationship which exists between the two divisions of Romans. The Christian ethic is grounded in the grace of God. Nowhere does Paul attempt to define a Christian summum, bonum, and to deduce from this a hierarchy of virtues. Just as foreign would be the Pharisaic Halakha, or Rule of Conduct, derived from a fixed code of commandments regarded as divine and unalterable. “He does not think of right conduct either as conformity with a code or as adding of virtue to virtue in a discipline of self-culture. It is the harvest of the Spirit—a spontaneous reaction of the inward spirit of a man, controlled by the Spirit of God, to the successive situations in which he finds himself as he lives with other men in society.”³ All the apostle does in this section, therefore, is to indicate in a general way how the Spirit of Christ will prompt a believer to behave both within the Church and in society in general. It is for this reason that the division is captioned “The Fruits of God’s Righteousness” (cf. Gal. 5:22-23). Any attempt to outline this section too neatly and logically is futile. We concur with John Knox’s observation: “Many proposals have been made, and the one adopted here is probably no better than several others.”⁴

A. THE BASIS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS, 12:1-2

1. Consecration (12:1)

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. In one of the finest passages in his definitive commentary on Romans, Godet shows how therefore (oun) is the connecting link between the two parts of the Epistle. Ancient religion, he reminds us, was service (latreia), or cultus, which centered in sacrifice (thysia). In Leviticus four kinds of sacrifice are enumerated; but they may be reduced to two: the first, comprising those sacrifices offered before reconciliation and to obtain it (the sin offering and the trespass offering); the second, the sacrifices offered after reconciliation and serving to celebrate it (the whole burnt offering and the peace offering). He sees the grand divisions of Romans as explained by this contrast.

The fundamental idea of the first part, chaps, i.-ix., was that of the sacrifice offered by God for the sin and transgression of mankind; witness the central passage, iii.25 and 26. These are the mercies of God to which Paul appeals here, and the development of which has filled the first eleven chapters. The practical part which we are beginning corresponds to the second kind of sacrifice, which was the symbol of consecration after pardon had been received (the holocaust, in which the victim was entirely burned), and of the communion re-established between Jehovah and the believer (the peace-offering, followed by a feast in the court of the temple). The sacrifice of expiation offered by God in the person of His Son should now find its response in the believer in the sacrifice of a complete consecration and intimate communion?⁵

I beseech (parakalo) may be rendered “I exhort” (Wesley), “I appeal” (RSV), “I urge” (NASB), “I beg” (Phillips), “I implore” (NEB). It differs from a legal commandment in that it appeals to a sentiment already existing in the heart, the mercies of God (ton oiktirmon tou theou, “the compassions of God” cf. 9:15b).⁶ The word may also mean “comfort.”⁷ “To exhort is to speak words calculated to move to action or endurance.”⁸ “In grateful recognition of what God in His infinite compassions has done for you in pardoning you your sins and receiving you back into His favor through Christ, I exhort you to make to Him a complete consecration of your bodies as a living sacrifice.” This is Paul’s appeal to the Roman brethren (adelphoi; cf. 1:13).

Present (parastesai) is not per se a sacrificial term. In 6:13, 16, 19, it is translated yield as well as present, and is used to express the idea of putting the body at the disposal of God or of sin (cf. also II Cor. 4:14; 11:2; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22, 28). Parastesai is aorist and therefore implies that consecration is an act (cf. comments on 6:13). The Christian is urged to present his body once for all for the service of God. By the same token consecration is also an activity, “a crisis and a process … a gift and a life.”⁹

The Roman Christians are exhorted to put their bodies (ta somata) at God’s disposal. Sanday and Headlam insist that ta somata is to be taken literally, like “your members” in 6:13. “Our members are to be hopla dikaiosunes to theo (vi. 13); our bodies (ta somata) are to be mele Christou (I Cor. vi. 15); they are the temple of the Holy Spirit (ib. ver. 19); we are to be pure both in body and in spirit (ib. vii. 34).”¹⁰ But surely Sanday and Headlam are wrong in contrasting ta somata with tou noos in v. 2. Denney observes that your bodies in 12:1 is not exactly the same as “yourselves” in 6:13, “yet no stress is to be laid on the words as though Paul were requiring the sanctification of the body as opposed to the spirit: the body is in view here as the instrument by which all human service is rendered to God, and the service which it does render, in the manner supposed, is not a bodily but a spiritual service.”¹¹ In biblical psychology body and spirit are a unit (cf. comments on 6:6). The Christian’s body is “his individual personality as an acting concrete whole.”¹²

This whole person is to become a living sacrifice for God. Chrysostom strikingly asks:

How can the body become a sacrifice? let the eye look upon nothing evil, and it has become a sacrifice; let the tongue speak nothing shameful, and it has become an offering; let the hand do nothing unlawful, and it has become a burnt-offering. Nay, this is not sufficient, but we need the active practice of good,—the hand must do alms, the mouth must bless them that curse, the ear must give attention without ceasing to divine lessons. For a sacrifice hath nothing impure, a sacrifice is the firstfruit of other things. And let us therefore with our hands, and our feet, and our mouth, and all our other members, render firstfruits unto God.¹³

This sacrifice is living (zosan) in opposition to the OT sacrifices, which were slain animals. We die to nothing but sin, that we may live wholly unto Him who died for us and rose again (cf.6:11; II Cor. 5:14-15, NASB, RSV). Audrey J. Williamson comments on present your bodies a living sacrifice: “This is the master word for the outward life of a Christian. It is more than surrender. We are to be consumed … upon God’s holy altar of service.”¹⁴ Just as the soldier sacrifices himself for his country in time of war, or the scientist sacrifices himself to advance medical knowledge to be used for the healing of mankind, so the Christian offers himself for the Kingdom. This implies a constant sacrifice of the physical for the sake of the spiritual in the sense that Paul spoke of it in I Cor. 9:24-27.

The sacrifice we offer God must also be holy (hagian). The Christian’s life is to be the antithesis of 1:24. He is to recognize that his body belongs to God and that it is to be set apart for His use. He is to be without sin, to become in very truth “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. 6:19-20; cf. I Pet. 1:14-16). “Observe that the way has been prepared for this injunction in vi. 13, 19, 22. It means that morality is lifted out of the sphere of convention or calculated expediency, and associated with all that is loftiest and deepest in the universe of our experience.”¹⁵

Such a sacrifice will be acceptable unto God (to theo euares-ton, well pleasing to God; cf. 14:28; II Cor. 5:9; Eph. 5:10; Phil. 4:18). “This body, full of life and constantly employed for good, will present a well-pleasing spectacle to the eye of God; it will be an ‘offering of sweet-smelling savour’ in the N.T. sense.”¹⁶

Moreover, says the apostle, this offering is your reasonable service (ten logiken latreian hymon). It is difficult to find a satisfactory rendering for this phrase. Etymologically, logike means “pertaining to the logos, or reason,” and therefore implies a service which befits a rational creature. Epictetus declared, “If I were a nightingale I would do what is proper to a nightingale … but in fact I am a rational (logikos) creature, so I must praise God.”¹⁷ The RSV renders the phrase, “your spiritual worship” NASB, “your spiritual service of worship” NEB, “the worship offered by mind and heart” (marg., “the worship which you, as rational creatures, should offer”). Service (latreia) was used in 9:4 of “the service of God” or the “worship” (RSV; cf. NEB, “the temple worship”) ordained for the Israelites. Logike latreia would thus appear to mean “the service of obedience as the only reasonable or logical response to the grace of God.”¹⁸ Barth thinks it should be rendered “your logical worship.” “It is logical, it simply stands to reason that the life of the man on whom God’s mercy has been bestowed is … such a life … as is intended to be presented to God.”¹⁹

2. Entire Sanctification (12:2)

In v. 2, we have a continuation of the thought in v. 1: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. The word and (kai) signifies here: and this means. To be sacrificed in body and consecrated to the service of God implies that we (1) be not conformed to this age (aioni) but (2) be … transformed as befitting members of the coming age. “The contrast between this age and the age to come is obviously in Paul’s mind when he uses these contrasting verbs.”²⁰

This age, as opposed to the age to come (cf. Eph. 1:21), is “evil” (Gal. 1:4); Satan is its “god” (II Cor. 4:4). All of us in our unregenerate condition “formerly walked according to the course of this age … in the lusts of our flesh” (Eph. 2:2-3, NASB, marg.). But as men of faith we have been resurrected with Christ and transferred to His heavenly realm (Eph. 2:4-10; cf. Col. 1:13). When Christ arose from the dead “the powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5, NASB) became operative in history. Those who have died with Christ and been raised with Him to newness of life (6:4) have become members of the coming age. “In Christ they have entered the new age; already they have received the first-fruits of the Spirit (viii.23), and are under obligation not to the flesh but to the Spirit (viii.12).”²¹

Here the obligations of this new life in Christ are expressed in a fresh way. Christians must not be conformed (syschema-tizesthe) to this age but transformed (metamorphousthe, lit. “be metamorphosed”) by the constant renewing (anakainosei) of the mind (tou noos). They have a present model to be rejected, then a new type to be discerned and realized. The model to be rejected is that presented to them by this present age, or, as we should say, the reigning fashion of the world. The term schema denotes the manner of holding oneself—attitude, pose; and the verb schematizesthai, used here and derived from it, means the adoption or imitation of this attitude or posture. The consecrated believer must not only reject the fashion of the world; he is to be metamorphosed. The term morphe, “form,” denotes, not an external pose suitable for imitation, like schema, but an organic form, the natural product of a principle of life which manifests itself thus. Sanday and Headlam paraphrase, “Do not adopt the external and fleeting fashion of this world, but be ye transformed in your inmost nature.”²² Phillips translates, “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its mold, but let God remold your minds from within.” The Greek verb is rendered “transfigure” in the transfiguration accounts at Matt. 17:2 and Mark 9:2. Transformation, or transfiguration, is from within by the working of God.

Godet points out that this double exhortation refers to “two continuous incessant acts which take place on the basis of our consecration performed once for all.”²³ Be ye transformed has the force of “go on being transformed.” “Instead of yielding to the influences which tend to shape us into the likeness of things around, we must day by day undergo a change in the opposite direction.”²⁴ The only other place this verb appears in the NT is in II Cor. 3:18, where Paul declares that believers “are being transformed” into the likeness of Christ “from one degree of glory to another” by the operation of the Spirit (NASB, RSV). As Denney reminds us, this process is properly described as sanctifi-cation.²⁵ See comments on 6:13, 19, 22 (cf. also 15:16).

Here the apostle explains that this transformation is by the renewing (te anakainosei) of your mind (tow noos). Renewing comes from the adjective kainos, which “denotes the new primarily in reference to quality, the fresh, unworn.”²⁶ God gives up to “blindness” the minds of those who reject Him (1:21), so that moral values no longer appear in their true light. Depravity of the whole man is the result (1:28). But to those who believe, God gives back the power of correct moral vision. To reject the conventional judgments of society and experience the grace of entire sanctification is to be given a fresh and independent insight into moral realities.²⁷ “And, since a man’s character is formed by his estimate of what is good or bad, the restoration of the moral vision gradually changes the whole man.”²⁸

There seems to be the further suggestion of moral strength. The nous of the awakened sinner perceives to some extent the law of God, but it is too weak to throw off the bondage of sin (7:14-25). The thought of renewal here therefore suggests renewed moral power by the action of the Holy Spirit, so that the mind which discerns God’s will with increasing clarity is regnant and victorious.²⁹ “Our bodies are to be pure and free from all the stains of passion; our ‘mind’ and ‘intellect’ are to be no longer enslaved by our fleshly nature, but renewed and purified by the gift of the Holy Spirit.”³⁰

In another Epistle, Paul says, “We have the mind [nous] of Christ” (I Cor. 2:16). This is the ability to prove (dokima-zein, “appreciate” or “discern”) what is the will of God, (viz., that which is) good (agathon), and acceptable to God (euares-ton, “well-pleasing” to God),³¹ and perfect (teleion, enabling us to realize the true end of our human existence and thereby completeness). Dodd comments, “We may recall that our psychologists regard the impulse toward completeness as ‘the most compelling motive of life,’and often find in it the basis of ‘natural’ ethics. Thus the will of God for man is not some mysterious and irrational form of holiness (such as leads to superstitious distinctions of days and food and the like; see chap. xiv.). It consists in that kind of life which the renewed mind of the Christian man can prove to be good in itself, satisfying, and complete.”³²

In 12:1-2 we see that “The Christian’s Calling” is to: (1) Consecration—Present your bodies; (2) Separation—Be not conformed; (3) Transformation—Be ye transformed (Ralph Earle).

B. CHRISTIAN LOVE WITHIN THE CHURCH, 12:3-13

1. The Humility of Love (12:3-8)

Paul begins, For I say (3). The preposition for (gar) suggests that “humility is the immediate effect of self-surrender to God.”³³ He illustrates this by his own position. He speaks through the grace (charitos) given to him as an apostle (1:5; 15:15), and therefore without pride. But he does speak with the God-given authority commensurate with this grace, and thus puts his Christian understanding and love at the service of the Church. He speaks to every man (panti) in the Roman congregation, for every man (ekasto) has been dealt some spiritual gift (cf. v. 6).

The apostolic exhortation is not to think of oneself more highly than one ought to think; but to think soberly. In the Greek there is a play on words—phronein eis to sophronein: “Turn the phronein, the energy of the mind, into a sophronein, a recognition of, and respect for, its limits.” Sober-mindedness is one of the Greek virtues, ranked by Aristotle in his Nichoma-chaean Ethics next to courage. For him it means soundness of mind, discretion, moderation, especially in the things of sense. But for Paul sober-mindedness is determined by a different frame of reference; his thought is God-centered. We are to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith (metron pisteos). Every believer has received from God a charisma (cf. v. 6), a gift of faith “which God has assigned him” (RSV). Faith here means “achieving faith,” the power from God to accomplish things (cf. I Cor. 13:2). “Men’s opinions of themselves should be in proportion not to natural capacities but to God’s gifts; if this is so they will never (even though God calls them to be apostles) be boastful, for they will remember that they have nothing they have not received (I Cor. iv.7) ,”³⁴ This acknowledgment cuts the taproot of pride. It enables one to “take a sane view of oneself” (Moffatt). Paul’s thought here is thus in line with that of Aristotle and the Greek ethicists, but the religious background of the apostle’s teaching gives a deeper meaning to the precept, “Know thyself,” while it also points the way to put it in practice.³⁵

Christian humility has yet another basis. To be “in Christ” is to be incorporated into a social whole in which individualism may be overcome in a loving concern to serve others. For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another (4-5). For Paul, the Church is the body of Christ. The as … so indicates that we have here only a simile or analogy, but the implication is clear: “In Christ” we are a corporate fellowship. Believers have varied functions which nevertheless are essential to the proper working of the body of which they are parts; there is therefore no place for any to think too highly of himself. The full import of Paul’s thought becomes clear if we read I Corinthians 12 as a commentary on it. Whatever gift one has received marks out that individual for a particular line of service, to which he must devote himself.

The apostle therefore proceeds: Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us(cf. v. 3), whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith(6). The term gifts (charismata) has occurred several times with different meanings (1:11; 5:15; 6:23; 11:29); “here it means an actualization, a practical expression, of the grace (charis) of God under which the Church stands. In this sense the whole life of the Church, not its ministry only, is ‘charismatic’.”³⁶ Prophecy was the gift of inspired speech; it sometimes, but not always, included the power of prediction (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11). The meaning of faith (tes pisteos) here is the same as in v. 3 (see comment there). Proportion (analogian) probably means much the same as measure in v. 3. The Greek tes pisteos may be translated “the faith” in the sense of “the Christian faith,” but this does not appear to be Paul’s meaning.³⁷ Like other Christians, the prophet must be sober-minded about his activity and importance.

Paul continues, Or ministry (diakonian), let us wait on our ministering (7). Diakonia simply means “service” (NASB, RSV). It was used generally of all Christian service (11:13; I Cor. 12:5; Eph. 4:12) or specifically of ministering to the temporal needs and bodily wants (I Cor. 16:15; II Cor. 8:4; cf. he that giveth, he that sheweth mercy, v. 8). It was already on the way to becoming a technical term (cf. deacon in 16:1; Phil. 1:1; I Tim. 3:8; cf. Acts 6:1-4).

Verses 7-8 add: Or he that teacheth, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation. Placed beside teaching, the word exhortation suggests preaching. For the meaning of exhortation (parakalon) see comments on v. 1. However, Barrett reminds us that we must avoid making too sharp a distinction between teaching and exhortation. “Each means a communication, effected in different ways, of the truth of the Gospel to the hearer; in the one it is explained, in the other applied. Yet it could never be explained without application or applied without explanation.”³⁸

He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity (8; en aploteti, “with liberality,” NASB, RSV; “with all your heart,” NEB). It is openhanded and openhearted generosity, giving out of compassion and singleness of purpose (cf. Matt. 6:1-4). He that ruleth (ho proistamenos, “he who presides”), with diligence (en spoude, “with zeal,” RSV). This may be an exhortation to Christian fathers to preside diligently over their households (I Tim. 3:4). Or it may be addressed to those who preside over churches (I Thess. 5:12; I Tim. 5:17). There is no indication in the NT whether the “president” presided at a Christian service of preaching and teaching (like the president of a Jewish synagogue), at the Lord’s Supper, or in a church meeting convened for deliberative or disciplinary purposes. Nor is it clear whether this was a distinct office or a function exercised jointly with others or in turn.³⁹ It was, however, a charisma of the Spirit just as much as prophecy or teaching.

He that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness suggests that when a man practices charity he should do so with a joyful heart. “To a Christian, kindness is a delight, not a duty.”⁴⁰

From 12:6-8, Maclaren discusses “Grace and Graces.” (1) The grace that gives the gifts, 6a; (2) The graces that flow from the grace, 6b-8; (3) The exercise of the graces, 6b-8.

2. The Sincerity of Love (12:9-13)

This section starts out: Let love (agape) be without dissimulation (anypokritos, “without hypocrisy,” NASB; “genuine,” RSV; “in all sincerity,” NEB). In I Corinthians 12 the enumeration of the gifts of the Spirit leads up to the conclusion (in c. 13) that agape love is greater than all gifts. Here the train of thought is the same, though the link is not expressed.

For Paul, as for John (I John 4:7-10), agape is the essential nature of God, His redemptive goodness expressed concretely in the Cross (5:8). It is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (5:5) and as such is the supreme and all-inclusive gift of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:31—13:13). It is not by chance that agape is here, as elsewhere in Paul’s writings, mentioned as first among the virtues of the Christian life. For example, when he enumerates “the fruit of the Spirit” it is agape he names first (Gal. 5:22). This is not because love is simply the first in a series of comparable virtues, but because it is the comprehensive manifestation of the Spirit (see Gal. 5:6; I Tim. 1:5). If love is sincere, all that to which Paul exhorts the church will follow.

Agape, however, is not vapid sentimentality; it is a vigorous moral quality. When it is genuine, it will abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good. Of Christ, who was the Incarnation of God’s love, it is written, “Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity” (Heb. 1:9). There is always something inexorable about divine love; it never condones evil. Agape is holy love.

While agape is universal (cf. Matt. 5:43-48), it has a special manifestation within the Christian fellowship. Paul exhorts: Be kindly affectioned (philostorgoi—“a proper term for family affection”)⁴¹ one to another with brotherly love (te Philadelphia; 10). The term Philadelphia is literally “brotherly love,” i.e., the love which binds God’s children together as a family (cf. II Pet. 1:7). “The moral purity required in ver. 9 is not the only mark of Christian love; since they are members of one family, their love is to have the character of strong natural affection (storge); it is to be warm, spontaneous, and constant.”⁴² Moreover, sincere love is other-regarding: in honour preferring one another (cf. I Cor. 13:5; Phil. 2:3). NASB translates, “Give preference to one another in honor.”

Zeal in all our Christian duties is the natural consequence of agape filling our hearts. Not slothful in business (11; te spoude me okneroi) is literally “in zeal not flagging.” The following clauses show that the words are being used in a spiritual sense. Of Jesus it was said, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (John 2:17; cf. Ps. 69:9). When the love which moved Him dwells in us, we will be fervent in spirit (to pneumati zeontes). “The parallel with ‘the Lord’ shows that here ‘Spirit’ means not the human spirit but the Holy Spirit.”⁴³ The RSV translates v. 11, “Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord.”

The exhortation continues: Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer (12). For hope see comments on 5:2; for tribulation, 5:3; for patience, 2:7; for continuing instant in prayer, cf. I Thess. 5:17. The Christian life, for all its fervent zeal, can never be so busy “doing” that it fails to look beyond all human activity—in hope that endures tribulation and in prayer which brings a constant renewal of the Holy Spirit.

The apostle makes two final applications of agape in the Christian community: Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality (13). For saints see comments on 1:7. From the very beginning hospitality was recognized as a foremost Christian virtue. The early Christians looked upon themselves as the new people of God scattered among the nations and therefore bound together as members of a body and as brothers in one family. The practical expression of this conviction would demand that whenever they went from one place to another they would find a home among the Christians where they visited. See Heb. 13:2; I Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:8; I Pet. 4:9.

C. CHRISTIAN LOVE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH (12:14—13:14)

1. Loving Our Enemies (12:14-21)

The apostle now composes a passage which strikingly echoes our Lord’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount: Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not (14; cf. Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28). It is this heavenly ability of agape to bless them that persecute you which lifts it above all human love. “If you love those who love you,” our Lord asks, “what do you do more than others?” (Matt. 5:46-47, NASB) Human love is conditioned by the goodness or lovableness of its object; agape is unconditioned in this sense—it spontaneously gives itself for its enemies (5:8-10). In Christian experience this love is essentially God’s own agape poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (5:5; cf. I John 4:10, 19). It was this love demonstrated by the martyr Stephen which registered in Paul’s conscience and helped to prepare the way for his conversion (cf. Acts 7:54-60).

Love reigning in our hearts prompts us to fulfill the apostle’s next command: Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep (15). Chrysostom observed that it requires more Christian grace to rejoice with the joyful than to weep with the sorrowful. “Nature” enables us to weep with a fellow human being who has suffered calamity, but to rejoice with another in his good fortune requires divine love “so as not only to keep from envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in esteem.” He suggests that this is why Paul places that exhortation first.⁴⁴

The next plea seems to be directly applicable to the Christian fellowship: Be of the same mind one toward another (16). Gifford paraphrases: “Let each so enter into the feelings and desires of the other as to be of one mind with him.”⁴⁵ There is a parallel passage in Phil. 2:2-4, where the injunction to be “like-minded” is followed by a statement of the only way in which this is possible in a Christian sense: “Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5, RSV).

The negative injunctions which follow help to reinforce Paul’s thought in that they forbid what would destroy the unanimity of love. Mind not high things (ta hypsela; cf. comments on 3), but condescend to men of low estate (tois tapeinois synapagomenoi). Although the contrast with ta hypsela has caused some to consider tois tapeinois also to be neuter, most translators follow the KJV in taking the latter to be masculine. “Do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly” (NASB; cf. RSV and NEB). Phillips translates, “Don’t become snobbish, but take a real interest in ordinary people.” Be not wise in your own conceits is a quotation from Prov. 3:7.

Paul’s next exhortation again broadens the Christian’s obligations: Recompense to no man evil for evil (17; cf. I Thess. 5:15; I Pet. 3:9). No man (medeni) means “no one, Christian or non-Christian.” Nothing can ever justify revenge in a Christian heart (cf. Matt. 5:38-48). The Christian must exemplify nobility of spirit. Provide things honest in the sight of all men should probably be rendered, “Take thought for what is noble in the sight of all” (RSV). A Christian cannot stoop to meanness of spirit; even the pagan conscience condemns ignoble conduct.⁴⁶

The Christian must be a man of peace, striving always for peaceful relations with his neighbors in the world. This is one of the primary social obligations of agape. So Paul continues, If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men (18). Christ’s man will go to all lengths to maintain a harmonious relation with all men. If collisions occur, as they almost inevitably will, the provocation must not come from the Christian’s side. When conflict comes, he must maintain a spirit of forgiveness, leaving the matter of his vindication with God. Accordingly we read, Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath (19; dote topon te orge, “give room or place to the wrath [of God],” cf. 2:5-6). The meaning is, “Do not take justice into your own hands; let God’s wrath punish” (cf. Eph. 4:27).⁴⁷ For it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord (from Deut. 32:35; the LXX reads, “In the day of vengeance I will repay”).

Paul now quotes Prov. 25:21-22 exactly as in the LXX. Therefore (alla, “but”) if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head (20). The apostle does not mean that we are to be consoled for our kindness by the knowledge that our enemy will be punished. This would be to have a malicious motive. Such an attitude would be utterly contrary to the meaning of agape and would violate the context of both Proverbs and our passage. Paul’s intent is brought out by the next exhortation, Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good (21). His thought is that of his Master in Matt. 5:38-42. What we do must be for our enemy’s good; by the power of agape we must strive to make of him a friend and a child of God. “Coals of fire must mean, as most commentators since Augustine have said, ‘the burning pangs of shame’ which a man will feel when good is returned for evil, and which may produce remorse and penitence and contrition.”⁴⁸

Dodd considers the last sentence of this chapter “an admirable summary of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, about what is called ‘non-resistance’“ and it expresses, he thinks, “the most creative element in Christian ethics.”⁴⁹

2. Living as a Citizen (13:1-7)

This section on the Christian’s obligation to the state is unique in Paul’s letters. One wonders why it occurs in this particular Epistle. Is it because he is writing to the church in Rome, the seat of the empire, where political concerns would naturally be strong? Or were there reasons, unknown to us, why he addressed the Romans in this manner? Perhaps the Jewish disturbances which led to Claudius’ edict were in the background.⁵⁰

There may have been a theological reason for including this explanation of the role of the state. In the previous chapter the apostle has cautioned Christians against conformity to this present world (12:2). Should they disavow loyalty to its institutions and authorities? Should they be in subjection to “the princes of this world” (I Cor. 2:6)? Since Jesus only is Lord (I Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:9-11), is there place for any other dominion? Since the Christian’s citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), is he not free from the obligations of earthly citizenship? From time to time these inferences have been drawn, and it may have been the knowledge of some such pattern of thought in the church at Rome which caused Paul to write as he did. There is no positive indication, however, that he is replying to such a specific situation.

The connection between the discussion of state authority and the preceding section is actually quite close. In fact the break between cc. 12 and 13 is more apparent than real; Paul has been led to introduce his new topic by the very movement of his ideas. In 12:14-21 he has insisted that the Christian is essentially a man of peace who refuses to resist evil. Does this policy of nonre-sistance mean the overturn of justice in human affairs? This counsel is hardly to be put forward as a way of life to be followed by all men. Furthermore, should it be generalized as applicable to every situation in which the Christian may find himself? Thus for many reasons there arises the question as to what the Christian attitude should be toward civil authorities whose responsibility it is to curb lawless actions. Is civil government contrary to the will of God?⁵¹

In answering this question Paul interrupts his discussion of agape, which he resumes in 13:8-10. The fact that he places this section in the midst of a passage in which he is explaining the nature of Christian love implies strongly that the conflict between agape and civil justice is not to be understood in terms of antithesis but in terms of things that are complementary. The Christian is a citizen of two orders, and Paul seems to be saying with the Master, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).

Finally, it is important to see that Paul’s treatment of the role of the state is positive. It serves the “good” of man (v. 5). While the state must not be confused with the Church and is a stranger to God’s love in Christ, it nevertheless operates within the providential will of God. It is this view which forms the basis for the Christian’s attitude of obedience to the civil authorities.

The section begins with the word of counsel, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (1; exousiais hyperechousais, “the governing authorities,” NASB, RSV). Every soul (pasa psyche) is a Hebraism suggesting the idea of individual duty. This view of submission to established authority was widely held in Judaism. It finds its first expression in Daniel (2:21, 37-38; 4:14, 26). In the apocryphal book of Wisdom we read, “Hear therefore, O ye kings, and understand; learn, ye that be judges of the ends of the earth. … For power is given you of the Lord, and sovereignty from the Highest, who shall try your works, and search out your counsels. Because, being ministers of his kingdom, ye have not judged aright, nor kept the law, nor walked after the counsel of God” (6:1-4). The idea here is the same as Paul’s: There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Wisdom, however, addresses its warning to rulers rather than subjects. The conception that civil authorities rule by divine ordination is the common idea and actually has both implications (viz., that rulers should discharge their responsibilities worthily, and subjects should respect and obey them).⁵²

The state is not simply a civil compact; it exists by divine order. With Wisdom, Paul would certainly agree that not all that the authorities do is necessarily in agreement with God’s will. “There are good and bad authorities, God-fearing and godless governments. There are some authorities that use their powers in harmony with God’s will, and others that misuse their powers and tramp the will of God under their feet. But Paul is not now talking about such distinctions. He is speaking of that which all authorities have in common, namely, that they are instituted by God. That there are governments in the world is not an arbitrary invention of man’s; it is a fact ordained by God.”⁵³

On the basis of this fundamental issue Paul makes his first practical point: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, re-sisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (2; krima; “condemnation,” Wesley, NASB; “judgment,” RSV). To oppose authority is to oppose God, and such opposition is bound to be punished. Since krima is punishment which comes through the human instrumentality of the state, it is temporal rather than eternal. Nevertheless, it is the judgment and “wrath” of God (cf. v. 5) which is being executed in the process.

The role of government is here portrayed in negative terms: it punishes those who resist its orders. If anarchy is to be prevented, governing authorities must be invested with powers of repression and punishment. On the other hand, Rulers are not a terror to good works (3). The positive side of government is not always apparent, for its primary purpose is to restrain the irresponsible exercise of freedom. By its very nature it comes into collision with lawless persons. But the person who exercises self-discipline finds no conflict with the state. He has no reason to be afraid of the power. “The citizen whose intention it is to live in his sphere and to play his part, without trespassing on the rights of his neighbour, is acting in the same sense as state authority and has nothing to fear from the latter; he is performing a good work for which he will be praised by the authority of the state.”⁵⁴

Since the state is by divine ordination Paul can take another step and declare that the civil authority is the minister of God to thee for good (4; cf. Wisdom 6:4, where rulers are spoken of as “ministers of his kingdom”). The magistrate is God’s minister (diakonos, servant) to preserve peace and tranquility in society. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. “The sword was carried, if not by, then before the higher magistrates, and symbolized the power of life and death which they had in their hands.”⁵⁵ That is to say, the magistrate’s sword is here “the instrument of capital punishment, which God authorizes him to inflict.”⁵⁶ This, however, does not sanction the practice of capital punishment as it may happen to prevail in a given society. The Christian conscience has a right to question and change the laws of a state in order to bring them to accord with God’s will as he understands it.

Quimby has put the matter well: “Today under our different form of government, in case of injustice, this teaching of Paul cannot be made to mean: Never object to any law, never agitate for repeal or change, never seek reforms. But it meant then, and it still means most properly: Never flout decent public order! Along that path lies anarchy and chaos. It is anti-God, for God is the God of order.”⁵⁷

Rulers are to be obeyed not only because they have the power of life and death over their subjects but also because it is right. Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake (5). Conscience recognizes the right of the state as an order of God, to command our obedience.⁵⁸ The state requires not only the goodwill but also the active support of its citizens. Paul writes, For this cause pay ye tribute also (6). The term tribute (phorous) is often used of payments made by a subject nation but here it probably means any imposts made for the support of the government. Most modern versions translate the word as “taxes.” Moreover, the authorities are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing (not collecting taxes, but promoting good and restraining evil). The word translated ministers (leitourgoi) was a common term for public officials, and especially for those who carried out public works in the service of the state. “The word in itself (although Paul uses it to describe his own office—xv. 16) is not a theological term, but derives theological significance from the genitive, ‘of God’. The Roman magistrates, little though they knew it, were public servants not of Rome but of God; it was his work they did. In this lay their true authority, and their right to receive ‘dues’.”⁵⁹

Paul’s conclusion is, Render therefore to all their dues: tribute (phoron) to whom tribute is due; custom (telon) to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour (7). Various distinctions have been made between phoros and telos. Lietzmann defines the distinction as being between direct and indirect taxes respectively.⁶⁰ Sanday and Headlam think phoros designates the tribute exacted by a foreign master-nation, and telos, ordinary taxation.⁶¹ Knox is probably right when he suggests, “Perhaps Paul has no particular distinction in mind; certainly he does not think of respect and honor as separately due to two distinct classes of men. … The point is that whatever one truly owes another (i.e., their dues), whether it is money or respect, one must fully pay.”⁶²

In 13:1-7, Paul indicates “The Christian’s Twofold Attitude Toward His Government.” (1) Submission, 1-5; (2) Support, 6 (Ralph Earle).

3. Discharging Our Obligation (13:8-10)

Paul has now concluded his theological treatment of civil law. What is the relation of that law to the law of Moses? This passage shows that there is no conflict or contradiction, because the love which fulfills the law of God means loving one’s neighbor as oneself.

The transition is from the precept, “Render therefore to all their dues,” to its negative corollary: Owe no man any thing (8). This means, Do not continue in a state of owing any of the obligations referred to in v. 7, but fulfill and discharge them. “Get rid of all debts, not by denying, ignoring, or evading them, but by paying them: there is only one debt of which one can never get rid—the debt of love.”⁶³ “Owe nothing to anyone except (ei me) to love one another” (NASB). Barrett paraphrases, “Let your only indebtedness be the mutual love you are bound to owe as Christians.”⁶⁴

The debt we owe is not constituted by any natural relationship but is created by God’s command: For he that loveth another (ton heteron, “the other”) hath fulfilled the law (God’s law). It is significant that Paul does not say “neighbour” here as in vv. 9 and 10. He is stating a moral principle. “Just as Christian faith means that a man is prepared to worship and obey God rather than himself, so Christian love means that his attention is directed away from himself and towards those who are essentially other than himself (cf. Phil, ii.4).”⁶⁵ Love for “neighbour” can quite easily be made to mean love for the one who is like-minded and congenial; but love is not Christian unless it includes the man who differs from me in every way.⁶⁶

Paul proceeds to show the manner in which love fulfills the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), Thou shalt not kill (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), Thou shalt not steal (Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19), Thou shalt not covet (Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21), and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (9; Lev. 19:18). The apostle here echoes Jesus’ summation of God’s law in two “great commandments” (cf. Matt. 22:34-40; Mark 12:29-31). The meaning is clear: If you love your neighbor (assuming that we put into this word the meaning of “the other” in v. 8), you will not offend against him in any way. As Paul goes on to say, Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law (10).

Love filling the heart and banishing ill will—this constitutes the fulfillment of the law’s requirement. The law does not demand of the Christian absolute perfection in every detail of conduct; it requires a motive of love. The Christian life is not to be a scrupulous straining after an impossible ideal of perfection but rather a joyous surrender of the self to God’s love in Christ. Christian love has its source in God (I John 4:10); it is poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who is given to us (5:5). By this gift of the Spirit the believer is enabled to fulfill “the just requirement of the law” (8:4, RSV). This John Wesley termed Christian perfection: “the loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that no wrong temper, none contrary to love, remains in the soul; and that all the thoughts, words, and actions, are governed by pure love.”⁶⁷

4. Awaiting the Consummation (13:11-14)

The apostle now concludes this section by reminding us that Christians are to live a life in keeping with the new age which is about to burst upon us in its glory with the coming of Christ. We must not be conformed to the scheme of this present age; our minds must be transformed into harmony with God’s new age (12:2). Thus in coming to the end of these exhortations Paul returns to his starting point.

We know the time (11; ton kairon) in which we live. The Greek word signifies “divine timing” in distinction from chronos, which is calendar time. Kairos is a divinely determined moment in the time process, and is used technically in the NT with reference to the time before Christ’s Parousia (I Cor. 7:29). Knowing the time, we do not behave as those who are unaware that the end is near. We realize that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

We live in expectation of the day of salvation which is dawning. In one sense our salvation is a present reality, but in another sense it is incomplete until Christ returns to give us His glory (see 8:17-23). It is this future salvation that Paul speaks of when he says that now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. Every day we live brings us nearer “the day of the Lord,” closer to the day of the revelation of His glory.

Earlier in this letter Paul spoke of the old age as the age of sin and death which stands under the wrath of God. Now he compares it with the night. The night is far spent, the day is at hand (12). As long as the old age lasts, the night continues. But the turning point has come, with Christ. “The dayspring from on high hath visited us” (Luke 1:78). The night continues of course, but it moves swiftly toward the daybreak. Those who are Christ’s belong no longer to the night; they are men of the morning, for they have seen the breaking of God’s new day.

The apostle now insists that our ethical life must conform to the fact that we are those of the day: Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Elsewhere, the works of darkness are called “the works of the flesh” (Gal. 5:19-21). Here an abbreviated list is given: rioting (komois, “carousing,” NASB; “reveling,” RSV) and drunkenness, chambering (koitais, “sexual promiscuity,” NASB; “debauchery,” RSV) and wantonness (aselgeiais, “sensuality,” NASB; “licentiousness,” RSV), strife and envy (13). All these belong to the night. In place of these we must put on the armour of light.

The entire exhortation is summarized in one shining sentence: But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof (14). “Herein is contained the whole of our salvation,” Wesley comments. “It is a strong and beautiful expression for the most intimate union with Him, and being clothed with all the graces which were in Him. The apostle does not say, Put on purity and sobriety, peacefulness and benevolence; but he says all this and a thousand times more at once, in saying, Put on Christ.”⁶⁸ But, to put on … Christ means to put off the flesh (cf. 8:8-9).

In Paul’s terminology the entire Christian life may be described as a putting off and a putting on. The process begins in justification and baptism. “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27; cf. 6:3-4). But that which happened implicitly in conversion must be made experientially real (6:11-13). All that belongs to the old age must be put off; all that belongs to the new must be put on. “But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering. And above all these things put on charity [agape], which is the bond of per-fectness” (Col. 3:8-10, 12, 14; cf. Eph. 4:22-24). Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof—that in one pithy sentence is what it means to be a Christian.

D. CHRISTIAN LOVE AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, 14:1—15:13

The final paragraph of the preceding section seems to conclude the ethical section of the Epistle. Knox observes that although different in form and content that passage is identical in function with the concluding exhortation of the Sermon on the Mount in both Matt. 7:24-29 and Luke 6:46-49. We have, therefore, in 14:1—15:13 something of a postscript to Paul’s ethics.⁶⁹

It has been customary to regard this plea for unity amidst diversity of religious opinion as directed to a specific situation which existed in the Roman church, but efforts to identify the sect or party which created the issue have not succeeded.

At first the man who is weak in the faith (1) seems to be a converted Jew who has not yet freed himself from the scruples of the Mosaic law. But the fact that he is a vegetarian (2), a man who will neither eat flesh nor drink wine (21), points to the Essenes, who are known to have been vegetarians and abstainers. Yet it is possible that the weak brother is a Gentile recently converted from idolatry who refuses to eat meat because that which he must buy at the markets has been previously consecrated to pagan divinities. Paul devotes three chapters of I Corinthians to this problem (I Corinthians 8—10).

These exhortations may not therefore be prompted by anything Paul knew about a specific situation in the Roman church. Rather, like the rest of the ethical section, they may be general instruction arising from issues with which Paul has had to deal elsewhere. Knox points out that in Corinth, where the apostle was at the time he wrote Romans,⁷⁰ he had seen the unity and harmony of the church threatened by two forces: diversities of gifts and differences of religious opinion. He reminds us that Romans 12:3-8 corresponds with I Corinthians 12 and 14, where Paul dealt with the first of these issues, while Rom. 12:9-21 may be compared with I Corinthians 13. Moreover, this present section bears a striking resemblance to I Corinthians 8—10. “Thus we find that two of the major sources of the disorder at Corinth are taken up for discussion in Romans, and taken up in connection with a discussion of love which bears many resemblances to the treatment of that same theme in that same connection in the Corinthian letter.”⁷¹ He thinks the inference we must draw is that Paul deals with these themes in Romans because of difficulties he has had in Corinth rather than because of any specific knowledge he may have had of Rome.

This inference finds further support in the fact that the treatment of these matters is more general in Romans than in Corinthians. In I Corinthians it is clear that the issue with relation to spiritual gifts is the specific matter of speaking in tongues, whereas Rom. 12:3-8 is a more generalized discussion of gifts. And with regard to the weak, whereas in I Corinthians Paul’s concern is primarily with those who scruple about meat offered to idols, the reference in Romans, as we have seen, is more vague and diffused.⁷²

1. The Strong and the Weak (14:1-12)

Paul begins with an abrupt injunction: Him that is weak in the faith (ton de asthenounta te piste) receive ye (1). “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 timorous scrupulosity of conscience.”⁷³ Nevertheless, the Romans are commanded to receive (proslambanesthe) this fearful believer into full Christian fellowship. The verb is often used of God’s gracious acceptance of men: if God receives this wavering man, so must we. Godet points out that Paul’s employment of the participle asthenounta instead of the adjective meaning weak (asthene) denotes one who is for the time feeble, but who may become strong.⁷⁴ Within the church he may come to a more adequate understanding of the gospel and thus to “the full assurance of faith” (cf. Heb. 10:19-23).

The weak brother must be received, but not to doubtful disputations (me eis diakriseis dialogismon). The Greek phrase means “but not to pass judgments on his thoughts.”⁷⁵ He cannot be argued out of his views; arguments would only confirm him in them. He must grow out of his limited ideas, and meanwhile he is not to be criticized and censured, but loved (cf. I Thess. 5:14).

The apostle proceeds to describe the two classes to which he is referring. One believeth (pisteuei, has faith) that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs (2; lachana esthiei, “eats only vegetables,” RSV). Sanday and Headlam understand Paul to be writing generally. “He takes, on the one side, the man of thoroughly strong faith, who has grasped the full meaning of Christianity; and on the other side, one who is, as would be generally admitted, overscrupulous, and therefore is suitable as the type of any variety of scrupulousness in food which might occur.”⁷⁶

Paul then gives a suitable word to each group. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him (3). The man of knowledge is prone to despise his scrupulous brother, while the temptation of the hyper-conscientious man is to judge the man who does not adhere to his scruples. Paul reminds this latter man that God hath received his brother. Through Christ He has admitted him into His gracious favor without imposing upon him minute and exacting rules. The brother must not therefore be criticized or censured for neglecting practices which God has not required.

The sharpness of the rebuke which follows shows that Paul, with all his love and consideration for the weak, was alert to the ever present tendency of the very conscientious person to lapse from scrupulosity about his own conduct into loveless Pharisaism toward that of others. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth (4). “Who are you to set yourself up as a brother’s judge or master? Do you not know that he is answerable to God, not to you?” (Cf.I Cor. 4:3-5.) Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand (cf. Phil. 1:6). “Do not take too gloomy a view of your brother’s chances of salvation. The grace of God is sufficient to uphold him.” Paul is aware of the dangers of spiritual sophistication (see I Cor. 8:1-3; 10:12), yet “he is confident that Christian liberty, through the grace and power of Christ, will prove a triumphant moral success.”⁷⁷

The apostle now passes on to another question of essentially the same nature—the religious observance of days. One man esteemeth one day above another (5). Here is a man who insists on observing the Jewish Sabbath, or perhaps the feast and fast days of Judaism. In Galatians, Paul expressed concern for his converts who had lapsed into such legalism: “Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain” (4:10-11). Since the Galatians had begun in the freedom of full Christian faith (1:6; 3:1-3), Paul considered their lapse a falling from grace (5:4). In this Roman letter he simply considers the principles which underlie such practices.

Here, however, is another man who esteemeth every day alike. This does not mean that another treats every day as secular; it may mean he regards every day as sacred, as dedicated to the service of God. In Hebrews we read, “There remaineth therefore a rest [sabbatismos, a keeping of the sabbath] to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest” (4:8-10). For the Christian who has entered “into that rest” every day is a sabbath unto God. This was certainly Paul’s attitude.

What solution does the apostle propose? Simply this, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. That is, let him decide on the basis of his personal relationship to the Lord. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it (6).⁷⁸ The scrupulous man who observes the Jewish Sabbath (and/or any other fast and feast days on the Jewish calendar) does so because he believes this is what the Lord requires; he who does not observe these days disregards them because he is convinced that Christ’s death on the Cross cancelled “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” including the observance of the Mosaic Sabbath (Eph. 2:11-22; Col. 2:13-17).⁷⁹ But still such matters are scruples of the private conscience, and every Christian must decide for himself what God’s will is for him in these questions. By the same token, He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Paul now proceeds to elaborate upon this truth of the believer’s responsibility to the Lord. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living (7-9). From the context it is evident when the apostle says that none of us liveth to himself he does not mean (as is often supposed) that our actions affect our fellowmen. He means that we live in relation to Christ. Both our life and our death are unto the Lord—nothing in life or death can separate us from Him (cf. 8:35-39), for by His death and resurrection He became Lord both of the dead and living.

Paul now applies the argument pointedly to the questions he is discussing. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ (10; cf. II Cor. 5:10). We are responsible to Christ: we shall appear before Him; there is therefore’no place for uncharitable judgments or self-righteous ex-clusiveness between Christian men. The apostle supports his warning of the universal character of God’s judgment by quoting from Isa. 45:23. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (11). We conclude therefore that it is to God and not to man that each of us has to give account. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God (12). Notice how easily Paul passes from Lord to God. The Father and the Son were so united in his mind that they are often interchanged. “God, or Christ, or God through Christ, will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son.”⁸⁰

2. Walking in Love (14:13-23)

The thought of the previous paragraph is assumed and summarized: Let us not therefore judge one another any more (13). Neither strong nor weak is in a position to adopt the superior attitude of the judge. All critical and censorious feelings must cease. Paul then presses on to a further point, using the word judge in a play on words: But judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall (skandalon) in his brother’s way. Sanday and Headlam think Paul derived the word skandalon and the whole thought of this sentence from our Lord’s words reported in Matt. 18:6-7 (cf. I Cor. 8:9-13).

It is evident that the apostle is now addressing the strong. Speaking as a man of knowledge, he says: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean (14). This may mean that Paul knew Jesus’ teaching on this matter (see Mark 7:14-23). A careful comparison of the ethical teachings in his Epistles reveals that the apostle was intimately acquainted with our Lord’s precepts. The phrase by the Lord Jesus (en kyrio Iesou), however, may mean “in the Lord Jesus” (NASB, RSV) in the sense of “as a Christian” (NEB). The claim that there is nothing unclean of itself must not be wrested out of its context here; Paul is speaking of meats (cf. Acts 10:13-15). But many a person can still be found who regards a certain food as unclean; if he were to eat it, he would be defiled, not because the food is in itself unclean, or offensive to God, but because his action is an offense against his conscience (cf. v. 23). To this person, it is unclean; for as a doubtful eater he cannot give God thanks (v. 6).

Bearing in mind this last point, we understand Paul’s next statement. But (gar, for) if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably (15). How may this brother be grieved? For one thing, it will pain his overly sensitive conscience to see you do what he (however wrongly) regards as sinful. But the real damage occurs when he is emboldened by your example to do what he believes God forbids him to do. He who eats with a bad conscience is a waverer who is condemned by his doubts. Hence Paul warns, Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their conscience, ye sin against Christ” (I Cor. 8:11-12). To grieve or offend a brother is therefore to cause him to fall into sin and perhaps to perish out of Christ.

Verses 1-15 show “The Christian’s Attitude Toward His Brother.” (1) Accepting differences of opinion, 1-6; (2) Avoiding censure, 7-11; (3) Avoiding giving offense, 12-15 (Ralph Earle).

The truth of 15 is expressed more generally in the next verse: Let not then your good be evil spoken of (16). The expression your good (hymon ton agathon) is somewhat indefinite, but in view of the context it can only mean “your Christian freedom,” “the freedom of conscience which has been won by Christ, but which will inevitably get a bad name if it is exercised in an inconsiderate loveless fashion.”⁸¹

To insist upon our freedom without regard to the conscientious scruples of others is not only to fail in Christian love but to misunderstand the nature of Christian experience. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink (brosis kai posts, “eating and drinking,” NASB); but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (17). “Faith is not ‘faith to eat all things’(v. 2); Christian privilege is not the privilege of being able to eat and drink what one likes.”⁸² Rather, faith is that relation to God which brings “the fruit of the Spirit” (cf. Gal. 5:22-23). Generally, in Paul’s letters righteousness and peace describe an objective relation to God; but here joy is certainly subjective and probably determines the sense of the other two words. Righteousness is therefore righteous action and peace a peaceful state of mind springing from a relation of peace with God.

In the Holy Ghost believers anticipate the blessings of the coming kingdom of God (cf. 8:11, 23). For Paul, the kingdom of God (as distinct from the present kingdom of Christ) is the future inheritance of the people of God (cf. I Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; I Thess. 2:12; II Thess. 1:5); but in the Holy Ghost its blessings can be enjoyed here and now.⁸³ It is this joy in the Holy Ghost that we should seek, rather than the pleasures of eating and drinking.

Verse 17 gives us “The Meaning of True Religion.” It is not a matter of externals—not meat and drink. Rather it is: (1) Righteousness, inward and outward; (2) Peace, “with God” and “of God” (3) Joy, “the echo of God’s life within” (Ralph Earle).

The next sentence follows immediately. For he that in these things (en touto, in this; “on the principle implied by these virtues”)⁸⁴ serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men (18). That is, the man is well-pleasing to God who serves Christ by being righteous and conciliatory and charitable toward others, not by selfishly insisting on his Christian liberty (cf. I Cor. 9:1-23). This man says with Paul, “For though I am free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all” (I Cor. 9:19).

Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another (19). “The practical rule implied here is that, when anything is morally indifferent to me, before I act on that conviction, I must ask how such action will affect the peace of the Church and the Christian growth of others.”⁸⁵ This determines the sense of the next sentence. For meat destroy not the work of God (20), i.e., not now the individual Christian (as in v. 15), but the Church as the temple of God (cf. I Cor. 3:15-16).

Paul now returns to a point further back in his argument: All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence (cf. v. 14). Both statements are true, but the apostle turns at once to give specific advice to the strong: It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth (21).⁸⁶ The meaning is: “I would live like an Essene rather than do anything to offend my brother.”⁸⁷ This is disciplining my life through Christian agape.

Hast thou faith? (in the sense of vv. 1-6) have it to thyself before God (22). “True faith is an invisible relation between man and God, a confidence in God so complete that the man who has it knows that no religious scrupulosity can add to the security of his relation with God.”⁸⁸ But the moment such faith begins to parade itself as a selfish demonstration of freedom, it ceases to be faith. The apostle clearly sanctions the position of the stronger brother, as he has tacitly done throughout the chapter. “But it is the man who is sure of his freedom of these things in Christ, just as it is the man who has real wealth or real learning, who makes no offensive display.”⁸⁹ This leads to the next assertion, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. Yet a man may “allow” himself an indulgence for which his own conscience may later condemn him. For this reason the “strong” believer must “take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:12; cf. Gal. 6:1).

But (de) he that doubteth is damned (katakekritai, “condemned,” NASB) if he eat: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin (23). The condemnation the Christian incurs who acts against his scruples is not simply subjective: “It is not only that his own conscience pronounces clearly against him after the act, but that such action incurs the condemnation of God. … Everything a Christian man does that cannot justify itself to him on the ground of the relation to Christ is sin. … All a man cannot do remembering that he is Christ’s—all he cannot do with the judgment-seat (ver. 10) and the cross (ver. 15) and all their restraints and inspirations present to his mind—is sin.”⁹⁰

In the light of Paul’s total position (which identifies him with the stronger brother; see 15:1) we should not conclude that a Christian must forever be in bondage to such scruples as we have been considering. The Christian conscience must be “trued” by the mind of Christ. To study the Gospels is to be struck by the fact that for Jesus the great issues of faith and life are at the opposite pole from such matters as dietary taboos (Mark 7:18-23) or even the punctilious observance of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-13). For our Lord “the weightier matters of the law” have to do with God’s requirement for “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23). The believer who is “weak in the faith” must understand that his salvation is wholly by grace through faith (as Paul has argued throughout this Epistle). It is therefore not dependent upon a scrupulous keeping of every jot and tittle of the law. “The just requirement of the law” is that a man shall express in all his personal and social relationships the spirit of Christian agape (cf. 13:8-11). The word which this man must hear is that of the prophet Micah, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Mic. 6:8) But until this word is clearly understood, he must be true to the limited light he has received.

3. Following Christ’s Example (15:1-13)

The fourteenth chapter has a certain completeness in itself, and we can understand that if copies of the Epistle were sent as a circular letter to different churches, some might have ended with 14:23, to which the Doxology (16:25-27) might have been appended, as in many MSS.⁹¹ But it is unquestionably the same subject which is continued in this section. It is still the relations of the strong to the weak with which Paul is concerned, but he now makes a new appeal for unity based upon the example of Christ. The strong must act in the spirit of Christ (vv.1-6), and in His spirit the strong and weak must receive one another (vv. 7-12). He then pronounces the first of several benedictions (v. 13).

a. Christ’s example to the strong (15:1-6). Paul now identifies himself with the strong: We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities {ta asthenemata, the weaknesses) of the weak, and not to please ourselves (1). The scrupulosity of the weak is a burden to be borne by the strong. This word of admonition is needed, for it is an easy matter for self-pleasing to shelter itself under the guise of Christian principle. If the weak are deficient in knowledge, the strong tend to fall short on love. Paul felt it necessary to warn the knowledgeable of Corinth, “ ‘Knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up” (I Cor. 8:1, RSV). It is for this love which edifies that Paul pleads (cf. Gal. 6:2). Let every one of us please his neighbour (2). Eating and drinking may please the palate, but the Christian must seek to please bis neighbour. But the neighbour may be pleased to his hurt, so Paul adds that he must be pleased for his good to edification. To afford him pleasure which does not build him up is not for his good (cf. 14:16,19).

“If it should seem burdensome and grievous to some strong Roman to live narrowly for the sake of the weak, the consolation and dignity of such a life are that Christ lived it”⁹²—For even Christ pleased not himself (3). Paul’s verb sums up the life and character of Christ: His very existence was one of self-giving for others (cf. Phil. 2:5-8). Yet instead of appealing to the life of Christ to support his statement, the apostle cites a prophecy: But, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me (Ps. 69:9). This psalm is quoted throughout the NT as having some reference to Christ.⁹³ It describes Him as being so identified with the cause of God that He endures in His own person the assaults of the enemies of God. Reproaches fell upon Christ because He pleased not himself, but lived to please God in the work of redemption. If self-pleasing had been the guide of His life, He would have escaped the shame and reproach which were heaped upon Him; but living as He did to please God, to serve His will for the salvation of men, these reproaches came, and thus were God’s.

Paul justifies this use of the Scriptures on the principle, For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope (4). This one verse, culled from the OT, moves Paul to say that every part of the same Scriptures was written for the same purpose—for our learning (cf. II Tim. 3:16). The OT abounds in instances of a self-denying life bringing glory to God; thus it stimulates our patience and gives us comfort or encouragement. The record of these instances becomes a proof that, as God dealt with His servants then, so will He deal with us now. It is by means of this patience and comfort derived from the OT that hope arises (cf. 5:3-4).⁹⁴

After the digression of the previous verse, Paul returns to his subject and sums up his plea by a prayer for the unity of the Roman church: Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (5-6). It is God who is the Source of the patience and consolation offered us in Scripture. These graces are the gift of God, but they are imparted by Him through the written Word. It is by these two Christian qualities, also, that God will make them like-minded one toward another. Once again Paul’s admonition to the Philip-pians comes to mind, “Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5, RSV). This does not mean that they will come to a common understanding on the questions of vegetarianism, Sabbath keeping, and such matters. They will, however, come to unanimity of spirit, so that with one mind and one mouth they may glorify God. This is true Christian unity, “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3; cf. John 17:21-23,26).

b. Christ’s example to all (15:7-13). Paul now makes an appeal to the entire church: Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God (7). The verb receive brings us back to the topic sentence of this section in 14:1. Knox paraphrases the general intention of vv. 7-12 thus: “Just as Christ came under the law in order that He might bring about the fulfillment of God’s purpose of salvation for both Jew and Gentile [which has been set forth in chs. 9—11], you Gentiles should be willing to bear with the scruples of some of your less mature and less fully emancipated brethren.”⁹⁵ Since Christ has received both groups, they are bound to receive … one another.

Verses 1-7 show us “The Christian’s Attitude Toward His Weaker Brother.” (1) Unselfish upholding, 1-4; (2) Unselfish understanding, 5-6; (3) Unselfish unity, 7 (Ralph Earle).

The gracious acceptance that Christ has given to men has led to two different results: Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy (8-9). God’s reception of the Jews led to His being glorified for His truth, that is, faithfulness to His promises made unto the fathers. His reception of the Gentiles led to God’s being glorified for His mercy; for without having promised anything to them directly, He has given everything to them as well as to the Jews. “And hence it is, that with the voice which rises from the people of Israel to celebrate God’s faithfulness, there should henceforth be joined that of the Gentile world magnifying His grace.”⁹⁶ Godet goes on to make the observation that the Gospel of Matthew illustrates that which strikes the Jew with reference to Christ’s coming, viz., the fulfillment of OT prophecy. On the other hand, the Gospel of Luke reveals that the heart of the Gentile is moved by the view of God’s mercy in Christ.

In carrying out this double purpose Paul declares that Christ was made a minister of the circumcision. This can mean only what he says in his Galatian letter: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons” (4:4-5). The Son of God submitted to the irksome limitations of the Mosaic law in order to carry out the scheme of salvation. He thus provides an example for all strong Christians (cf. v. 3). If Jesus Christ submitted himself to the burdensome restrictions imposed upon Him by the Pharisaical interpretation of the OT, in order to bring about God’s plan of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the Gentiles should be willing to bear with the scrupulosity of their less enlightened brethren.⁹⁷

The inclusion of the Gentiles is not to be regarded as accidental; it was predicted in Scripture. As it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name (Ps. 18:49). The point of this quotation, as in those that follow in 10-12, lies in the reference to the Gentiles, and, secondarily, in the offering of praise for God’s faithfulness and mercy. And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people (Deut. 32:43). And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people(Ps. 117:1). And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust (elpiou-sin, hope; Isa. 11:10).

The discussion of the relations between strong and weak in the Roman church concludes with a brief benediction upon the readers. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost (13). God is described as the God of hope, evidently because of the last words of the preceding quotation: “In him shall the Gentiles hope” (RSV). The richer the possession of present blessings (joy and peace) which the believer derives from believing, the more does his soul rise to an apprehension of future blessing, and according to Paul’s expression here, “overflow with hope” (NEB). The last words, the power of the Holy Ghost, point the readers back once more (as in 14:17) to the true power they ought to seek, in contrast to the false expression of power by which one selfishly displays his freedom. When our freedom is under the power of the Holy Ghost, we say with the apostle what he said of himself: “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. To the weak became I as the weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake” (I Cor. 9:19, 22-23).