the weak should not be wearied with fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he now
handles: for as many of the Jews still clave to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits, that this
was a fault in them; he yet requires that they should be for a time excused; for to press the matter
urgently on them might have shaken their faith.^415
He then calls those contentious questions which disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established,
or which involve it in doubts. It may at the same time be proper to extend this farther, even to any
thorny and difficult questions, by which weak consciences, without any edification, may be disquieted
and disturbed. We ought then to consider what questions any one is able to bear, and to accommodate
our teaching to the capacity of individuals.
2.Let him who believes, etc. What Erasmus has followed among the various readings I know
not; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’s words, is complete; and instead of the
relative article he has improperly introduced alius — one, “One indeed believes,” etc. That I take
the infinitive for an imperative, ought not to appear unnatural nor strained, for it is a mode of
speaking very usual with Paul.^416 He then calls those believers who were endued with a conscience
fully satisfied; to these he allowed the use of all things without any difference. In the mean time
the weak did eat herbs, and abstained from those things, the use of which he thought was not lawful.
If the common version be more approved, the meaning then will be, — that it is not right that he
who freely eats all things, as he believes them to be lawful, should require those, who are yet tender
and weak in faith, to walk by the same rule. But to render the word sick, as some have done, is
absurd.
- Let not him who eats, etc. He wisely and suitably meets the faults of both parties. They who
were strong had this fault, — that they despised those as superstitious who were scrupulous about
Macknight. Both words are in the plural number; therefore to give the first the sense of “judging,” as Hodge does, cannot be
right; for in that case it would have been in the singular number. The words may be rendered, “no for the solutions of doubts.”
One of the meanings of the first word, according to Hesychius, is — untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see
Luke 24:38, and 1 Timothy 2:8. according to the frequent import of the preposition , the sentence may be thus paraphrased,
“Him who is weak in the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts,” or, “debate in reasonings,” or, “contend in
disputations.” — Ed.(^415) Scott’s remarks on this verse are striking and appropriate, — “Notwithstanding,” he says, “the authority vested by Christ
in his Apostles, and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind, differences of opinion prevailed even among real
Christians; nor did St. Paul, by an express decision and command, attempt to put a final termination to them. A proposition
indeed may be certain and important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due preparation of mind and heart; — so that a
compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without conviction, would in general be hypocrisy,
and entirely unavailing. So essential are the rights and existence of private judgment, in all possible cases, to the exercise of true
religion! and so useless an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding controversies, and producing unanimity
among Christians!”
(^416) This is true, but the passage here seems not to require such a construction. Both sentences are declarative, announcing a
fact respecting two parties: the one believed he might eat everything; the other did eat only herbs. The relative , when repeated,
often means “one,” as in Romans 13:5, and in 1 Corinthians 11:21: and the article stands here for that repetition; an example
of which Raphelius adduces from the Greek classics.
Some think that this abstinence from meat was not peculiar to the Jews; but that some Gentiles also had scruples on the
subject. It is true that heathens, who held the transmigration of souls, did not eat flesh: but it is not likely that abstinence, arising
from such an absurd notion, would have been thus treated by the Apostle. It indeed appears evident, that the abstinence here
referred to did arise from what was regarded to be the will of God: and though abstinence from all animal food was not enjoined
on the Jews, yet it appears from history that Jews, living among heathens, wholly abstained, owing to the fear they had of being
in any way contaminated. This was the case with Daniel and his companions, Daniel 1:8-16. Professor Hodge says, in a note on
this passage, “Josephus states in his life (chapter 23) that certain Jewish priests, while at Rome, lived entirely upon fruit, from
the dread of eating anything unclean.” We may also suppose that some of the Essenes, who abstained from meat and from wine,
were among the early converts. — Ed.