THE church at Rome was made up partly of Jews and partly
of Gentiles; and one great and obvious design of this epistle, as might be seen
in various pasages from the beginning to the end of it, was to reconcile them
so far as that they should be brought to one mind - if not in all matters of
opinion, at least in mutual affection, which, when there happen to be
diversities of sentiment or practice, cannot possibly be sustained without
mutual forbearance. Their common faith, while implying a full agreement in
certain great and essential principles, did not supersede the diversities here
spoken off; and the object of Paul was not that in these they should cease to
differ, but that in these they should agree to differ. He did not vainly
attempt by a stern decree of uniformity to harmonise their understandings, so
as that they should think alike; but he did attempt, by the mild persuasives of
gospel charity, the far likelier fulfilment of harmonising their spirits, so as
that they should feel alike in their love and benignant toleration of each
other. Paul was pre-eminently and characteristically a peace-rnaker - up to the
limit within which peace was at all practicable, or in as far as the high
demands of principle and purity would allow -for beyond that limit none more
unyielding, and none more uncompromising than he. It was only as far as lay in
him, or as far as it was possible, that he lived peaceably himself or would
recommend others to live peaceably with all men. He was first pure; and it was
after he had provided for this high interest - it was then that he was
peaceable.
This beautiful combination, this blending together of truth
and charity, is more fully and intimately seen by us, as we pass in detail over
the successive verses of this truly catholic and enlightened chapter.
Ver. 1, 2. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another,
who is weak, eateth herbs.
Who is meant by him that is weak in the
faith we learn from the second verse, where we are told that the weak man was
he who ate herbs - leaving us to infer, of course, that the strong man was he
who believed that he might eat all things. He who was strong in the faith that
Christ had fulfilled for him all righteousness, and left him nothing but the
law of love, would in very proportion to the force of this conviction, feel
exempted from the scrupulosities of a mere formal or external observation; and
not only assert, without compunction or fear, but also live in the liberty
wherewith Christ had made him free. It was easier, however, for the Gentile to
do this than for the Jew, who had to overcome the prejudices of his early
education, and make a conquest over his yet lingering sensibilities on the side
of what he had been taught to look upon as right and religious in other days.
For the genuine exhibition then of a strong and enlightened conscience, we
should look not so much to the Gentile converts as to those Jewish disciples
who did not judaise. And to them too should we look for greater tenderness
towards those more sensitive of their brethren, who felt themselves not able to
surmount the native partialities wherewjth the recollections of their birth and
of their hereditary worship had inspired them. They would all the more readily
sympathise with feelings in which they themselves shared - though with a
struggle they had got the better of them. They could make greater allowance for
these their brethren in the flesh than could others; and this is not the only
example of first-rate men, the highest in strength and intellect, being at the
same time the most generous in their indulgence to the infirmities of others.
Paul, himself a converted Jew, and who now regarded as superstitious that which
he formerly held as most bindingly and inviolably sacred - he nobly interposes
to throw the shield of his protection over those kinsmen and countrymen of his
who had embraced the gospel, yet could not altogether and conclusively quit the
dear associations which had begun with their infancy, and were strengthened
along the successive stages of youth and manhood, till they had become babes in
Christ, and continued babes or were still in the childhood of their
Christianity, at the time when his epistle, to the Romans was penned. We
conceive that they would be chiefly the Gentiles -who despised such. Paul, and
those of the Jews who like him had had experience of the trial, would we
imagire, with a fellow-feeling for the doubts and difficulties which themselves
had mastered, view their weaker, but still their conscientiçus brethren,
with respect and tenderness.
Accordingly in arbitrating between the
weak and the strong, it is on the side of the weak that his first apostolic
deliverance is given. He bids them be received, but not to doubtful
disputations - to be recognised on the footing of their common brotherhood in
all the great and essential principles of Christianity; but not to be harassed
with contentious argumentation about those matters of indifferency, which, with
their yet abiding prejudipes, were not of indifferency to them.
If they
had not the understanding to be convinced of the nullity, because now the
expiration, of the Mosaic ceremonial - or at least if they could not attain
such a strength of conviction as to displace their feelings on the side of
certain Hebrew observances to which they still so fondly and tenaciously clung,
it was not the part of their brethren to overbear these feelings, or even to
annoy them with vexatious controversies, at once endless and unfruitful. These
are what the apostle in his other writings characterises as vain janglings, and
foolish questions, and contentions, and strivings about the law, which were
unprofitable and vain. What he inculcates, instead of these, is a discreet
silence, and meanwhile a respectful toleration - in the confidence, we have no
doubt, that, with mild and patient forbearance, all would come right at the
last. He felt as if the important gospel truths which they laid hold of, would,
by their own direct influence, dispossess the mind of all its Jewish
absurdities and trifles. Seeing that at least the foundation on which they
rested was sound, he trusted that the wood and hay and stubble would at length
be consumed.
This is in perfect keeping with his treatment of the
disciples in other instances. They agreed in all that was essential, else they
could be no diciples of his; but they did not therefore agree in all things. He
knew however that they were in the faith, and so under the teaching of the
Spirit; and he trusted more to this than to the efficacy of any disputatious
argument. And accordingly, instead of attempting to force them all prematurely
into one way of thinking - he, on certain matters of inferior moment, left them
very much to themselves, as he did those Philippians who were not yet perfect
in all their views - Telling them, that "if in any thing ye be otherwise
minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Meanwhile he was satisfied if,
with all their differences and shortcomings in things of lesser consideration,
his own paramount charity took but full possession of them. "Nevetheless
whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the
same thing." This was admirable and exquisitely good management - the same
indeed with that of our Saviour, who refrained from putting new wine into old
bottles; and, instead of dogmatising His apostles either into truths
observances which they were not yet prepared spake to them only as
they were able to bear it. It was in this spirit that Paul treated his Jewish
converts; and he wanted all who were alike enlightened with himself to treat
them in the same way.
There are other general lessons enveloped in this
passage; but, before expatiating any further on these, let me prosecute a
little longer our examination of particular verses.
Ver. 3, 4.
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. Who art thou
that judgest another mans servant! to his own master he standeth or
falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up; for God is able to make him stand.
The apostle, in his even-handed manner, deals alike with both parties.
After having told the strong that they should not despise the weak, he tells
the weak that they should not condemn the strong. Let not him that eateth not
judge him that eateth. In the state of his conscience, it were a profane thing
in him to eat - for this would be to eat what he still thought was forbidden.
But let him not judge others who do not think in the same way. Let him not look
upon them as profane persons, though they should eat what he would religiously
recoil from. God has received, or taken them into acceptance. It is likely that
they had some palpable evidence of this acceptance in the visible and
extraordinary gifts of that period - conferred on some of those, who, in the
full use of their Christian liberty, looked on all men as alike And so they
might make out the same conclusion for themselves that Peter did respecting the
Gentiles of the household of Cornelius, after that they had received the Holy
Ghost. Have a care then, lest, in refusing fellowship with these, you withstand
or contravene the judgment of God. It is not improbable that these
extraordinary gifts were shared alike by both parties - a lesson therefore to
both of mutual respect and toleration. At all events; they had the express
authority of the apostle, who, in the first verse, bade the strong receive the
weak; and, in the third verse, tells the weak that God had received the strong.
And it is thus that he would guard the one party against contempt of their
fellows, and the other against eensoriousness.
Ver. 5, 6.
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day
alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 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. 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.
The same lesson is extended to days, respecting the
observance of which there obtained a like diversity of sentiment. The apostle
brings the same enlarged and enlightened casuistry to bear on both. He wanted
each man to act in conformity with his own persuasion, whatever that persuasion
might be - only he wanted each man to be fully persuaded in his own mind. He
did not care so much about what the persuasion specially was in such matters,
as that the conduct should be agreeable hereto. He therefore forebear himself;
and would have his disciples to forbear also, from all argumentation between
the right and the wrong persuasion in these matters; but held it imperative
that as the persuasion, which he wanted to be as thorough and decided as
possible, so ought in all consistency the performance to be. The persuasion
might be wrong, but this were only an obliquity of intellect. But if the
performance were not as the persuasion, this were far more grievous - a moral
obliquity - sin against the light of a mans own conscience - the
dereliction of what he thought to be his duty towards God. To think in one way
of Gods will and act in another, were to renounce the authority of His
will - an abjuration of the principle of living unto God - Whereas men might
think diversely of that will, and yet the will of God be alike respected; or
the principle of living unto Him be alike retained and alike proceeded on by
all. Paul generously grants the benefit of this fair and liberal allowance to
both parties in this controversy, whether of meats or of days. The Lord may be
alike the object of regard with him who observes the day and with him who
observes it not - or with him who eateth and him who eateth not. In the hearts
of both these His supreracy may be alike felt and recognised; and there may be
a like devotedness to His service in the lives of both.
Ver. 7,
8. For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
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 Lords.
Paul, as
his manner is, stops at the passing suggestion which had occurred in the course
of his argument - to render homage, by the way as it were, to the principle
which it embodied. That principle is the entire surrender of the creature, in
all his desires and doings, to the Creator who gave him birth. It is our part
to make ourselves wholly over unto God. All true Christians, whether the
observer or not of meats and days are alike in this; and cannot possibly be
otherwise without the forfeiture of their discipleship. Each real convert
liveth unto God, and not unto himself; and each man dieth unto God, and not
unto himself. We think that there is a difference between these two clauses,
which, however minute in expression, is worthy, in respect of substance and
meaning, to have perhaps a greater stress laid upon it than is usually done. It
is none of us, who liveth to himself; but it is no man
who dieth to himself. None of us, none of the household of faith, no real
Christian, but who liveth unto God and not unto himself - for at the
commencement of his new life he made a voluntary dedication of himself unto
God; and the constant, while throughout the voluntary habit of this life, is to
yield himself up in all things unto the will of God and not unto his own will.
Whereas universally no man dieth unto himself. When he dies it is not by a
voluntary act of his own; but at the decree of God, to whose absolute disposal
of him, at death or after it, he must helplessly and passively give himself
over. When it comes to this, then is it true of every man without exception,
that he can have no choice, but is wholly in the hands of God - if not a
Christian, to be judged and consigned by Him as a vessel of wrath to the place
of everlasting condemnation; and if a Christian, to be judged by Him, but that
in order to his preferment as a vessel of mercy in the realms of everlasting
blessedness and glory. It is only, however, the dying of the Christian that is
of a piece with his living. If with him tq live is Christ, with him also to die
is gain, or Christ still, whom to win he counts all things but loss. It is he
and he only who both lives unto the Lord and dies unto the Lord - so that
whether he live or die, he is the Lords - it being his great aim, and
that of all genuine disciples, so to labour, that, whether present or absent,
whether living or dead, they may be accepted of Him.
Ver. 9.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be
Lord both of the dead and living.
One naturally enquires here how it
is, that the death and resurrection of Christ stand connected with His right of
dominion or lordship over both the dead and the living. That His death, in
particular, gave Him a rightful sovereignty ovor the living, is otherwise
expressed by the apostle in the following passage - " If one died for all, then
were all dead; and he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth
live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them and rose again." It is
indeed a most rightful thing, that as He poured out His soul unto the death for
us, we should give up our souls in absolute and entire dedication to Him. By
His death He purchased us, and made us His own. We are His property, as bought
with the price of His blood and therefore it is our part to glorify the Lord
with our soul and spirit and body, which are the Lords.
And
again, as to the effect of His resurrection, we are told that Christ is the
first-fruits of them who slept - that because He liveth we shall live also -
through death He destroyed him who had the power of death; and so, in virtue of
the power wherewith He is now invested over heaven and earth, He can, in behalf
of His captives in the grave, open for them the door of their prison-house, and
make them sit together with Himself in heavenly places, even around that throne
of exaltation to which He has Himself been raised - and this "that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth and
things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." In this and many other Scriptures,
there is enough of harmony with the verse before us - to explain the dependence
here stated between, on the one hand, the lordship of Christ over both dead and
living, and His own death and own revival, upon the other.
Ver.
10-13. 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
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord , every knee shall bow to me, and
every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account
of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge
this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock, or an occasion to fall, in his
brothers way.
The consideration stated in these verses is
so very obvious, and put so clearly and conclusively, that it requires no
lengthened illustration on our part. It had indeed been already put - in the
fourth verse - Who art thou that judgest another mans servant? to
his own mater he standeth or falleth. It really does not belong to us -
it is not ours - thus to be judging and censuring one another. Speak not evil
then one of another, and judge not thy brother - for thou thyself art but a
doer of the law, and not a judge. Your business with the law is to obey it,
not- to judge out of it. Who art thou then that judgest another? The
reason given by the apostle last quoted for not reckoning with, and not
grudging against one another, is, that the coming of the Lord draweth nigh, and
that the Judge is at the door. The habit of sitting in judgment on each other,
so prevalent not only in the world at large, but in the professingly religious
world, is a peculiarly dangerous one - because it peculiarly exposes us, and
that in the way of reaction or recompence, to the judgment of God. And
accordingly we are told to judge not "that we be not judged ;" and that with
"whatt judgment we judge we shall be judged ;" and that if we will judge
others, we must not think that ourselves shall "escape the judgment of God ;
and finally, that we should abstain from this practice, lest ourselves "be
condemned." But the consideration urged here is not properly the danger
of it, but rather, if I may so speak, the impertinence or the presumption of
it. It is intruding on the office of another - an office wherewith He and He
alone has been invested ; and which it is competent for Him only to discharge.
In the language of the Psalmist - when we thus venture on a function so sacred
and so lofty, we really are meddling with a matter too high for us. It is
really not for us, who ourselves are to be sifted at the bar of judgment, thus
to usurp the place of its tribunal, and take the judgment upon ourselves. This
is the exclusive office of Him, before whom every knee is to bow and every
tongue to confess; and our right place is that of them who do this homage, not
of Him who receives it. This sort of judgment therefore, the judgment of
others, is not within our province - although there be another judgment which
Paul does allow us to exercise, and which indeed he himself exemplifies - the
judgment not of anothers character, but of our own duty - the duty, not
of pronouncing on what others are, but of performing what we owe to them, and
owe them too in this very matter. No doubt he tells us authoritatively what
this duty is; but he leaves us at liberty to form our own judgment in regard to
the real truth and principle of the question, and to act accordingly We are
free to judge, whether we should eat or not; but he lays it down, clear and
imperative obligation not to eat, if thereby we are to put a stumbling-block or
an occasion to fall in our brothers way. None more tolerant than Paul in
things doubtful or insignificant - yet none more peremptory or uncompromislng
than he, when once the light of a clear and great principle breaks in upon him.
Himself the strongest of the strong, he was yet the most indulgent of all men
to the infirmities of the weak; nor can we imagine a more rare and beauteous
combination than was realised by our apostle, who, without disturbance either
to his enlightened conscience or manly understanding, could eat freely of all
sorts of food - yet would eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest it should
make his brother to offend.
Ver. 14 - 16. 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. But if thy
brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him
not with thy meat for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken
of.
Paul here asserts his own right of judgment on the absolute
merits of the question, and tells us the result of it- even the persuasion, nay
more positive than this, the knowledge that no meat was unclean in itself. He
further tells us, that he was so persuaded by the Lord Jesus - yet so
unessential was this persuasion, so unimportant the point in question, that the
same Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, did not interdict him from
allowing to others the liberty of thinking differently. And accordingly at the
very time of giving forth the sentence, and on the highest of all authority,
that there is nothing unclean of itself, he leaves others at liberty to esteem
any thing unclean. We are not sure, if anywhere else in Scripture, the divine
authority of toleration is so clearly manifested; or so distinct a sanction
given to a certain amount of liberty in opinion - even though it should be
branded as latitudinariism by those strainers at a rigid uniformity, who, as
appears from this whole chapter, might carry their intolerance too far. Even at
the expence of absolute, though not, it would appear, of indispensable truth,
were men allowed to think of meats that they were unclean - and this in the
face of the apostolic deliverance that they were not unclean.
But while
Paul suffered them to think so, he made it imperative, that, if they thus
thought, so also should they act. They were at liberty to think any particular
meat unclean; but, so thinking, they were not at liberty to use it. This would
have been to sin against the light of their own minds - to trample on the high
prerogatives of conscience, which, even though mistaken, does not therefore
forfeit the supreme authority which belongs to it.
But if thy
brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably - or
better and more impressive to the English reader - now walkest thou not in
love. We are aware of nothing more attractive or amiable than the way in which
Paul lets himself down to the weak; or than the flexibility of his
accommodation to the harmless peculiarities even of the perverse and erring -
all the more engaging in that when the slightest inroad was offered upon
essential principle, none more resolute or inflexible in withstanding it than
he. The explanation of these two different, though by no means opposite or
inconsistent aspects, in the mind of our great apostle, seems to be this. He,
on the one hand, a strong man himself, could be all respect and indulgence to
the weak; and he pressed upon others strong as he was, the duty of being alike
respectful and alike indulgent. But should these weak, on the other hand, not
satisfied with this full allowance to themselves of their own peculiarities,
impose these peculiarities on others as essential to salvation, and thus
derogate from the sufficiency and the power of what Paul had all along and most
zealously contended for as the alone ground of our acceptance with God, even
the righteousness of Christ made ours by faith - then what he most freely and
generously conceded to the infirmities of others, he would not, even by the
minutest fraction, yield to their intolerance. The one he could do, for this
were but an exercise of pity. The other he could not do, for this were a
surrender of principle. And thus it is that acts of seeming contrariety in the
life and ministry of Paul admit of being fully harmonised. When be circumcised
Timothy for example, and purified himself along with the four men who had a vow
upon them for the accomplishment of certain rites prescribed by the law - these
things he did under the influence of the first consideration, "because of the
Jews which were in these quarters," as we read in one place; and in the spirit
of charitable accommodation to "the many thousands of the Jews which believe,"
as we read in another. Paul was quite satisfied that on all such questions, the
Gentiles should let alone the Jews; and that the Jews, on the other hand,
should let alone the Gentiles.
But when the Jews, not content with a
toleration for themselves, turned upon the Gentiles, and would compel them "to
live as do the Jews" - then it was that the influence of the second
consideration came into play. And so the same Paul who circumcised Timothy, and
purified himself according to the ritual of Moses, and that because of true
brethren, who advised, this deference to the Jews that he might not grieve or
disturb their consciences - would not suffer Titus to be circumcised,
and that because of false brethren, who would have made this deference to the
Jews an occasion for bringing the Gentiles into bondage. To them he gave place
by subjection, no not for an hour, and this for sake of "the truth of the
gospel." Nay, when Peter gave way in so far to this scheme of compulsion. Paul
withstood him to the face - and this again for "the truth of the gospel." A
generous and voluntary compliance with Jewish scrupulosity is one thing; a
forced compliance with Jewish intolerance is quite another. Paul would have
yielded the former, because he felt for those which were of the circumcision,
and is therefore to be applauded. Peter would have yielded the latter, because
he "feared them which were of the circumcision," and is therefore "to be
blamed." We can never sufficiently admire the honourable and consistent way
which our great apostle found out for himself, when pressed with difficulties
on the right hand and on the left. When holding question with those of his
countrymen who were burdened with their own weak and wounded consciences, Paul
knew how to be meek and harmless as a dove. When holding question with those of
his countrymen, who, intent on judaising the whole Christian world, would have
laid the burden of their ritual upon others, and thus infringed on the great
doctrine of justification by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the
law - then Paul knew how both to be wise a a serpent, and bold as a lion. As
the exhibition of a well-balanced mind, there are few things more admirable
than this: Nor, after Him who is the great Pattern of all righteousness, is
there any scriptural character in which the best qualities of our nature are
more gracefully and harmoniously blended; or where the noble conjunction of
truth with mercy, of firmness with gentleness, is more conspicuously
realised.
It is on the side of tenderness that he appears at present;
and in behalf of a distress wherewith he of all others could most readily and
delicately sympathise - the distress of an afflicted conscience. Let not thy
brother be grieved with thy meat. The mere spectacle of what he deems to be a
profane violation is fitted to give him pain. Or if brought into a state of
ambiguity on this question of meats, between the influence of his own Jewish
education, that would lead him to abstain, and the influence of Christian
example, that would lead him to indulge the very conflict is painful. But worse
than painful it might come to be destructive, should the authority of this
example overbear him into a premature compliance against the light of his own
conscience, not yet satisfied. In the one you grieve, in the other you would
destroy him - destroy him whom Christ died to save. Surely a little self-denial
on our part is not too much to maintain the safety of the object for which
Christ gave Himself up unto the death.
Let not then your good be
evil spoken of, He is addressing himself to the strong; and the good he
here means, their especial good, was the liberty wherewith Christ hath made
them free. This liberty was liable to be perverted and abused in various ways.
For example, they had to be warned not to use this "liberty for an occasion to
the flesh." And it is added, "but by love serve one another." Now they were
violating this love, if to please themselves they were either grieving or
hurting the consciences of their brethren. And so there was a limit or a
discretion to be observed in the exercise of this liberty - a liberty which
ought never to be indulged, either for the gratification of their own
licentiousness, or in opposition to that love which they owed to others.
And the reason given in our text supplies another limitation. They should not
unnecessarily expose this good to be evil spoken of - even though the evil
should be spoken of it falsely, or undeservedly. We learn from 1 Corinthians,
x, 30 - that the eating of certain things, such as what had been offered unto
idols, was liable to be thus spoken of; and so along with the liberty of the
gospel, the gospel itself was slandered, and Christianity made to suffer at the
hands of its own friends. It should be felt enough surely, if this liberty
minister peace to our own consciences; and it is a most unthankful return on
our part, if we so parade it before the eye of others - as to excite prejudice
and calumny thereby against the truth that is in Jesus. We might well surely
deny ourselves somewhat for the good of the church and the advancement of
godliness among men. "Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do,
do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the
Gentiles, nor to the church of God. Even as I please all men in all things, not
seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."
Go to Lecture 96Back to Romans index