Homilies on Romans

<!--<span class="stiki"></span>-->Romans XIV. 1, 2

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eats herbs.”

I Am aware that to most what is here said is a difficulty. And therefore I must first give the subject of the whole of this passage, and what he wishes to correct in writing this. What does he wish to correct then? There were many of the Jews which believed, who adhered of conscience to the Law, and after their believing, still kept to the observance of meats, as not having courage yet to quit the service of the Law entirely. Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine's flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law. Others again were farther advanced, (τελειότεροι) and kept up no one thing of the kind, who became to those, who did keep them, distressing and offensive, by reproaching them, accusing them, driving them to despondency. Therefore the blessed Paul, out of fear lest, from a wish to be right about a trifle, they should overthrow the whole, and from a wish to bring them to indifferency about what they ate, should put them in a fair way for deserting the faith, and out of a zeal to put everything right at once, before the fit opportunity had come, should do mischief on vital points, so by this continual rebuking setting them adrift from their agreement in (ὁ μολογίας εἰς) Christ, and so they should remain not righted in either respect: observe what great judgment he uses and how he concerns himself with both interests with his customary wisdom. For neither does he venture to say to those who rebuke, You are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, You are doing right, lest he should make them the more vehement accusers: but he makes his rebuke to square with each. And in appearance he is rebuking the stronger, but he pours forth all he has to say against the other in his address to these. For the kind of correction most likely to be less grating is, when a person addresses some one else, while he is striking a blow at a different person, since this does not permit the person rebuked to fly into a passion, and introduces the medicine of correction unperceived. See now with what judgment he does this, and how well-timed he is with it. For after saying, “make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof,” then he proceeds to the discussion of these points, that he might not seem to be speaking in defence of those who were the rebukers, and were for eating of anything. For the weaker part ever requires more forethought. Wherefore he aims his blow against the strong, immediately saying as follows, “Him that is weak in the faith.” You see one blow immediately given to him. For by calling him weak (ἀ σθενοὕντα), he points out that he is not healthy (ἄ ρρωστον). Then he adds next, “receive,” and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. “Not to doubtful disputations.” See, he has laid on a third stripe. For here he makes it appear that his error is of such a nature, that even those who do not transgress in the same manner, and who nevertheless admit him to their affection, and are earnestly bent upon curing him, are at doubt. You see how in appearance he is conversing with these, but is rebuking others secretly and without giving offense. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, “One believes that he may eat all things,” commending him on the score of his faith. “Another who is weak, eats herbs,” disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness. Then since the blow he had given was deadly (καιρίαν, used hyperbolically), he comforts him again in these words,

Ver. 3. “Let not him that eats, despise him that eats not.”

He does not say, let him alone, nor does he say, do not blame him, nor yet, do not set him right; but do not reproach him, do not “despise” him, to show they were doing a thing perfectly ridiculous. But of this he speaks in other words. “Let not him which eats not, judge him that eats.” For as the more advanced made light of these, as of little faith, and falsely healed, and spurious, and still Judaizers, so they too judged these as law-breakers, or as given to gluttony. And of these it is likely that many were of the Gentiles too. Wherefore he proceeds, for God has received him. But in the other's case he does not say this. And yet to be despised was the eater's share, as a glutton, but to be judged, his that did not eat, as of little faith. But he has made them change places, to show that he not only does not deserve to be despised, but that he can even despise. But do I condemn him? He means. By no means. For this is why he proceeds, “for God has received him.” Why then do you speak to him of the law, as to a transgressor? “For God has received him:” that is, has shown His unspeakable grace about him, and has freed him from all charges against him; then again he turns to the strong.

Ver. 4. “Who are you that judgest another man's servant?”

Whence it appears that they too judged, and did not despise only. “To his own Master he stands or falls.” See here is another stroke. And the indignation seems to be against the strong man, and he attacks him. When he says, “Yea, he shall be holden up,” he shows that he is still wavering, and requires so much attention as to call in God as a physician for this, “for God,” he says, “is able to make him stand.” And this we say of things we are quite in despair about. Then, that he may not despair he both gives him the name of a servant when he says, “Who are you that judgest another man's servant?” And here again he secretly attacks him. For it is not because he does things worthy to exempt him from being judged, that I bid you not judge him, but because he is Another's servant, that is, not yours, but God's. Then to solace him again he does not say, “falls,” but what? “stands or falls.” But whether it be the latter or the former, either of these is the Master's concernment, since the loss also goes to Him, if he does fall, as the riches too, if he stand. And this again if we do not attend to Paul's aim in not wishing them to be rebuked before a fitting opportunity, is very unworthy of the mutual care becoming for Christians. But (as I am always saying) we must examine the mind with which it is spoken, and the subject on which it is said and the object he would compass when he says it. But he makes them respectful by no slight motive, when he says this: for what he means is, if God, Who undergoes the loss, hitherto does nothing, how can you be else than ill-timed and out of all measure exact, when you seize on (ἄ γκων, throttle) him and annoy him?

Ver. 5. “One man esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike.”