Let not him that eats make little of him that eats not; and let not him that eats not judge him that eats for God has received him.
Paul is writing to believers who disagreed about food. One man ate freely, another kept to vegetables — and each had a distinct way of wronging the other.
The verse names two faults, not one, and each belongs to a different man:
When we judge things differently, our first natural impulse is to start interfering with one another. The one who eats will despise the one who does not eat. Such scruples look narrow-minded in the extreme to him. The one who does not eat will judge and condemn the eater. He can see that freedom only as licence taken without any right.
Paul does not settle the argument by naming a winner. One view is better informed, yet neither man may correct the other:
No doubt the man who believed he could eat anything was far more right in his thinking than the man who ate only vegetables. Still, such prejudices, or the lack of them, gave no ground for making little of the weak or for judging the strong. There was a double danger of fault. The man who knew his liberty might despise the careful man, and the careful man might judge the free. But that weakness is no more folly than that strength is looseness, just as divine love is always holy while always free. God has received the believer. This is said with emphasis about the man whom the weak judged to be taking too much licence.
Weakness here is not sin and not unbelief. It is a limited grasp of what belonging to Christ already secures:
Those weak in the faith did not have the complete knowledge of their position in Christ, though they knew Christ and loved Him. They did not realise that certain observances of days, or abstinences from meats and drinks, could not affect their salvation in any way. There were scruples and conscientious difficulties, as there still are among God's people.
The difficulty is conscience, not rebellion. One writer draws the line between a man who is mistaken and a man who is corrupt:
An ignorant conscience is a very different thing from a defiled conscience... But the case is very different for the man who holds impressions that may be quite mistaken, far from what fuller light would produce. He still walks with pure intent under those impressions, as under a yoke God has placed on his neck.
Paul ends the dispute by pointing away from both men to God. God did not receive either man because of his diet:
The Apostle instructs us that in such matters there is to be mutual forbearance. For this he gives three reasons. First, God has received both the weak and the strong. His reception of us did not depend upon our eating, or not eating, certain foods. Secondly, in such matters we stand or fall to our own Master, and we are not to judge another man's servants. Thirdly, the Lord is able to sustain us and make us stand, even if in such matters we are weak in the faith.
Reception runs both ways, and it rests on the same ground for each man:
The strong is to receive the weak in the faith, and the weak is to receive the strong, because both alike are debtors to grace. This principle shows how very tender we should be with the scruples of a fellow believer. It also shows how very slow we should be to judge someone who takes more liberty than we allow ourselves.
The problem is not the position either man holds. It is the office each one claims over the other:
The thing that is really unwarranted is not the apparent narrow vision of the one, nor the apparent wide licence of the other. It is taking up the work of a judge, which belongs to the great Master of us all alone.
Commentators warn against stretching this verse beyond food and days. It is not a permission to believe anything we like:
We must remember, of course, that the Apostle is not raising any question about doctrine here. He is not speaking of the faith. We are not free to believe what we like. A faith has been revealed and committed to us. If a question arises about truth or doctrine, revelation is the only appeal.
The freedom also collapses the moment one side tries to make its scruple binding on everyone:
Of course, someone might try to force the eating of vegetables, the avoiding of meat, or the keeping of days on the necks of the disciples as a yoke. Then it would be our place to resist without compromise.
- Received first. God received both men, and His welcome never rested on what they ate.
- Received differently. One is weak: he has not yet grasped his position in Christ. The other is strong. Yet that strength is no more a merit than that weakness is a folly.
- Received mutually. Both are debtors to grace. So the strong receives the careful man, and the careful man receives the free.
- Received by a Master. To despise or to condemn is to take a seat that belongs to the Master alone. Each servant stands or falls before Him.
- Received, not unlimited. This covers scruples, not doctrine. It ends where anyone tries to bind his scruple on another's neck.
Who art *thou* that judgest the servant of another? to his own master he stands or falls. And he shall be made to stand; for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Paul is writing to believers in Rome who disagreed over food and sacred days. Each side had begun to look down on the other. Into that quarrel he puts a question that takes the case out of human hands: the person you criticise belongs to someone else.
The word Paul uses for "servant" here comes from the life of a household:
oiketes, "household servant." Luke 16:13; Acts 10:7; Rom. 14:4; 1 Peter 2:18.
So the objection is not that either side had the wrong opinion. It is that both had taken up a role that was never theirs:
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" asks the Apostle. What a fitting question! The thing that is truly out of order is neither the seeming narrowness of the one nor the seeming looseness of the other. It is taking up the judge's role, which belongs to the great Master of us all alone. To that Master we stand or fall, and we can count on His support, as the last part of the verse says, to our encouragement.
Stepping into that place is not simply rude to the brother. It reaches past him:
In the first place, conscience decides what is right and what is wrong, as far as it goes, and a man acts at his own peril. Note this too. A man may get light from God's revelation, but God is and will be the final judge, and the conscience must regard Him so. Conscience answers to God directly. No one can step in between the conscience and God so as to destroy God's right. The apostle asks, "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls." To come in between God and the conscience is not to touch man's rights, but God's.
Read with the verse before it, this one supplies a chain of arguments:
The Apostle instructs us that, in such matters, there is to be mutual forbearance. For this he gives three reasons. First, God has received both, the weak and the strong. His reception of us did not depend upon our eating, or not eating, certain meats. Second, in such matters we stand or fall to our own Master, and we are not to judge another man's servants. Third, the Lord is able to hold us up and make us stand, even if in such matters we are weak in the faith.
The last clause is not a throwaway. Critics tend to predict where a brother's freedom will end up, and Paul answers the prediction directly:
He adds a lovely word, no doubt in answer to many a bitter guess about where their liberty would end: "And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand." For the strong have no strength of their own, but grace will hold them up. Would we want it any other way, if we could? Do we not delight that all is from Him?
Paul lived by this himself. Apollos would not fall in with his wish, and Paul let it rest:
He might have insisted that, as the apostle of the Gentiles, Apollos should bow to his wish. Instead, he accepts that Apollos had a will in the matter. Apollos was responsible to the Lord, not to Paul, for where he went in His service. Here we learn a lesson: one servant of the Lord should not try to force his will on another servant, but should leave each one to act before the Lord.
Commentators warn against stretching the verse. It covers personal scruples, not forcing them on others:
A man may have faith about certain things and perfect liberty in his own mind, whether about days or foods or many other minor things. But his faith or his liberty should not lead him to act in a way that trips up his weak brother. This is the spirit and teaching of this whole beautiful chapter, this lovely summary of Christian morals. Of course, if anyone tried to force the eating of herbs, abstinence from meats or the keeping of days on the disciples as a yoke, it would be our place to resist without compromise.
- Received — the argument starts where God started. He received both the strong and the weak, and food was never the condition.
- Owned — the word is "household servant." He belongs to another home, and his own Master settles whether he stands or falls.
- Trespass — pushing in between a conscience and God does not injure a man's rights; it injures God's.
- Upheld — the sentence ends in grace, not in warning. The strong have no strength of their own, and the Lord is able to hold up the weak.
- Limit — leave liberty free, but never turn it into a yoke. When anyone presses his scruples on others as law, resist it.
One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Paul turns from big doctrine to a small argument about the calendar: some believers kept certain days as special, while others treated every day the same. The real question is not who was right, but why God left the matter open — and how believers should treat each other when they disagree.
This concern had a history. Jewish believers had grown up in a system where God Himself had set certain days apart.
It is easy to see where keeping special days came from: Judaism. God had set those days up in that system of things — but only as pictures of better things to come, and not as having any spiritual value in themselves. Yet if some believers still held on, to some degree, to keeping those days because their conscience required it of them, no one should make an issue of it. And they must not be allowed to demand it of others.
Commentators are careful to say what this verse does not cover. They put the first day of the week on settled ground:
It is worth seeing that the Apostle is not speaking about the Lord's day. Keeping the first day of the week as the Lord's day has the backing of Scripture. It is not left as an open matter (see John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10).
The freedom in this verse is not freedom to do as you like. It comes from belonging to one Master.
In matters like these — personal behaviour and service to the Lord done from conscience — Christ's higher lordship sets us free from the rule of fellow believers. We may be right or wrong in our judgment. What matters most is that each of us, with a single eye for our Master, does what we believe pleases Him. The instruction that hangs on this is, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."
If Scripture had given a plain command, no one would need persuading. God leaves some questions open on purpose, and that puts each believer alone before Him.
God means each of us to face such matters before Him, each one for himself. If Scripture gave a clear command, there would be no need for that exercise. Then simple obedience is the only course that pleases God. But how many other matters there are! Should I go here or there? Should I take part in this or that? May I enjoy this pleasure or not? … What bitter and harmful arguments have raged around such questions! And the answer is so simple. Stop the quarrelling! Hands off each other! Let each man go to his own knees, in the presence of his own Master, so that he may learn, as far as he is able, what his Master wants.
Two people cannot both be right about the same day. But both can act out of loyalty, and God weighs that.
The Lord has one mind, so it cannot point in two opposite directions. Yet whether they acted or held back, loyalty to the Lord guided both of them, as far as they understood His mind. That pleased Him, and it counted for more than getting the point right.
This tolerance has a boundary. In Galatians the same practice gets a very different answer, because there people kept days in order to gain blessing.
They were keeping days and months and seasons and years, as if an outward ritual could secure blessing — a ritual that even an unconverted person could carry out, whether Jew or pagan. It is true that in his letter to the Romans the Apostle urges believers who are not Jews to bear with a Jewish believer who still holds on to keeping special days and refusing certain foods. But here he shows that if such a believer goes back to the system of keeping certain days and ceremonies, he returns not only to Judaism but to pagan idol worship.
The standard is personal conviction. So pushing someone into your practice does him real harm.
To press my faith on someone else would all but destroy his own exercise of faith. If I stand before God, then let every believer stand before God too… The one who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat with the full freedom of personal faith. If we really care about a fellow believer, we will do all we can to see him act only in faith.
- Persuaded, not pressured — where Scripture gives no command, God wants each believer settled in his own mind before Him, not pushed there by someone else.
- Persuaded about what — open questions like food and special days. The Lord's day is not one of them; Scripture settles that.
- Persuaded before whom — one Master sets you free from a fellow believer's judgment. Keep a single eye on what pleases Him.
- Persuaded together — two believers can act in opposite ways and both be loyal. God counts that loyalty for more than being right.
- Persuaded, or harmed — press your freedom on a doubting believer and you rob him of his own faith. Patience ends only where days are taught as a system you must keep.
He that regards the day, regards it to [the] Lord. And he that eats, eats to [the] Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he that does not eat, [it is] to [the] Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
Some believers ate meat; others would not. Some kept special days; others kept none. The verse settles the dispute without saying who was right. Its repeated phrase — "in honor of the Lord" — points past the practice to the Lord Himself. Both sides end up giving thanks to God.
Both sides act toward the same Lord. So the call is not to match each other, but to bear with each other. That also leaves the door open to learn more later.
In such matters believers must bear with each other. They all agree in doing what they do to the Lord, even though they differ in judging what to do. This leaves room for growth in knowledge as the word of God opens to our faith, while their conscience is still respected.
Two people who act in opposite ways cannot both read the Lord's mind correctly. Yet the verse commends both. So something other than being right counts here.
The verse shows that the one who regards the day, or who eats, does so to the Lord. The one who does not regard the day, or does not eat, holds back to the Lord just the same. The mind of the Lord is one, and it cannot lie in two opposite directions. But whether they acted or did not act, loyalty to the Lord governed both, as far as each understood His mind. This pleased Him, and it counted for more than being correct in understanding.
The verse gives one visible sign that a choice points to the Lord: the person can thank God for it. This test works either way.
If a man feels that the Lord's authority calls him to keep other days carefully, let him not ignore his conscience. Let every man be fully sure in his own mind about the Lord's authority over him. Let him gladly seek to own that authority in practice. Whether he eats or refrains from eating, let it be with a heart that can freely give God thanks.
This chapter does not permit anything and everything. The subject is narrow, and the "weak" believer is not the careless one.
Keep this carefully in mind. What the Holy Spirit lays down here does not refer to matters of moral good or evil, nor to doctrine or revelation. It refers to questions that grew out of the remains of Jewish feeling. In other words, "the weak" brother loved Christ and hated sin no less truly than "the strong." The weak were not lax, but the opposite: they were extremely and painfully careful, and so they worried about eating meat or keeping a day.
The verse leaves the choice of days open, so it matters which days are meant. One day is not part of the discussion.
It is well to see that the Apostle is not speaking of the Lord's day. Scripture itself sanctions keeping the first day of the week as the Lord's day. It is not left as an open matter. (See John 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10.)
The first people in view had grown up with Jewish observances. The same thing happens whenever believers come in with a conscience about forms they grew up with.
There are many even Gentiles in our own day who are in a very similar position. They grew up with forms and ceremonies, and their conscience tells them to keep them. We are to bear with these saints, and remember they keep the day as to the Lord. We sometimes hear very bitter things said against those who keep Christmas day… But many dear children of God value this day above other days. They do it not in the spirit of Galatians 4, but in the spirit of Romans 14.
Because both sides act for the Lord, neither one should judge the other. But there is a limit. Bearing with a private conscience is one thing; teaching it as a rule for everyone is another.
The weak regard the day for the Lord's sake; the others do not regard it because of the Lord. This is the reason for not judging. The one I judge is the Lord's… But this principle can be turned the other way, when people use such observances to destroy liberty in Christ. For that, see Galatians 4. There the apostle shows that if someone teaches the observance as a principle, it is really turning back to paganism.
- Aim — The keeper and the non-keeper act toward the same Lord. The verse names the aim, not the action.
- Loyalty — Two opposite practices cannot both match His mind. Yet loyalty, as far as each one understands Him, pleases Him more than being right.
- Thanks — Both sides give God thanks. That is the sign the choice was aimed at Him: if you cannot thank Him for it, do not do it.
- Scope — The subject is worries over food and days, not morals or doctrine. The "weak" here love Christ and hate sin. They are over-careful, not careless.
- Limit — Bearing with others covers a private conscience. When someone teaches an observance as a rule for all, Galatians 4 applies instead.