time, to set the liberty given by Christ in opposition to the bondage of the law, lest they thought
that they were bound to observe those rites from which Christ had made them free. By the exception
which he has laid down, we learn that there is nothing so pure but what may be contaminated by a
corrupt conscience: for it is faith alone and godliness which sanctify all things to us. The unbelieving,
being polluted within, defile all things by their very touch. (Titus 1:15.)
15.But if through meat thy brother is grieved, etc. He now explains how the offending of our
brethren may vitiate the use of good things. And the first thing is, — that love is violated, when
our brother is made to grieve by what is so trifling; for it is contrary to love to occasion grief to
any one. The next thing is, — that when the weak conscience is wounded, the price of Christ’s
blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a
heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach; and we must be basely given up to our
own lusts, if we prefer meat, a worthless thing, to Christ.^428 The third reason is, — that since the
liberty attained for us by Christ is a blessing, we ought to take care, lest it should be evil spoken
of by men and justly blamed, which is the case, when we unseasonably use God’s gifts. These
reasons then ought to influence us, lest by using our liberty, we thoughtlessly cause offenses.^429
17.For the kingdom of God, etc. He now, on the other hand, teaches us, that we can without
loss abstain from the use of our liberty, because the kingdom of God does not consist in such things.
Those things indeed, which are necessary either to build up or preserve the kingdom of God, are
by no means to be neglected, whatever offenses may hence follow: but if for love’s sake it be lawful
to abstain from meat, while God’s honor is uninjured, while Christ’s kingdom suffers no harm,
while religion is not hindered, then they are not to be borne with, who for meat’s sake disturb the
Church. He uses similar arguments in his first Epistle to the Corinthians:
“Meat,” he says, “for the stomach, and the stomach for meat; but God will destroy both,” ( 1
Corinthians 6:13:)
again,
“If we eat, we shall not abound,” (1 Corinthians 8:8.)
By these words he meant briefly to show, that meat and drink were things too worthless, that
on their account the course of the gospel should be impeded.
But righteousness and peace, etc. He, in passing, has set these in opposition to meat and drink;
not for the purpose of enumerating all the things which constitute the kingdom of Christ, but of
showing, that it consists of spiritual things. He has at the same time no doubt included in few words
was fully assured by the Lord Jesus, that is, by the teaching of his word Spirit, that nothing was in itself unclean, all ceremonial
distinctions having been now removed and abolished. — Ed.(^428) From the words “destroy not,” etc., some have deduced the sentiment, that those for whom Christ died may perish for ever.
It is neither wise nor just to draw a conclusion of this kind; for it is one that is negatived by many positive declarations of
Scripture. Man’s inference, when contrary to God’s word, cannot be right. Besides, the Apostle’s object in this passage is clearly
this, — to exhibit the sin of those who disregarded without saying that it actually effected that evil. Some have very unwisely
attempted to obviate the inference above mentioned, by suggesting, that the destruction meant was that of comfort and edification.
But no doubt the Apostle meant the ruin of the soul; hence the urgency of his exhortation, — “Do not act in such a way as tends
to endanger the safety of a soul for whom Christ has shed his blood;” or, “Destroy not,” that is, as far as you can do so. Apostles
and ministers are said to “save” men; some are exhorted here not to “destroy” them. Neither of these effects can follow, except
in the first instance, God grants his blessing, and in the second his permission; and his permission as to his people he will never
grant, as he has expressly told us. See John 10:27-29. — Ed.
(^429) “Vestrum bonum,” μ . Some, such as Grotius and Hammond, Scott, Chalmers, etc., agree with Calvin, and view
this “good,” or privilege, to be Christian liberty, or freedom from ceremonial observances, (see 1 Corinthians 10:29;) but Origen,
Ambrose, Theodoret, Mede, etc., consider that the gospel is meant. The first opinion is the most suitable to the passage. — Ed.