Study

11. Who are of the family of Narcissus It would have been unbecoming to have passed by Peter in so long a catalogue, if he was then at Rome: yet he must have been there, if we believe the Romanists. But since in doubtful things nothing is better than to follow probable conjecture, no one, who judges impartially, will be persuaded that what they affirm is true; for he could not surely have been omitted by Paul.

It is further to be noticed, that we hear nothing here of splendid and magnificent titles, by which we might conclude that men high in rank were Christians; for all those whom Paul mentions were the obscure and the ignoble at Rome. Narcissus, whom he here names, was, I think, the freeman of Claudius, a man notorious for many crimes and vices. The more wonderful was the goodness of God, which penetrated into that impure house, abounding in all kinds of wickedness; not that Narcissus himself had been converted to Christ, but it was a great thing that a house, which was like hell, should be visited by the grace of Christ. And as they, who lived under a foul pander, the most voracious robber, and the most corrupt of men, worshipped Christ in purity, there is no reason that servants should wait for their masters, but every one ought to follow Christ for himself. Yea, the exception added by Paul shows that the family was divided, so that the faithful were only a few.

16. Salute one another with a holy kiss It is clear from many parts of Scripture, that a kiss was a usual and common symbol of friendship among the Jews; it was perhaps less used by the Romans, though not unfrequent, only it was not lawful to kiss women, except those only who were relatives. It became however a custom among the ancients for Christians to kiss one another before partaking of the Supper, to testify by that sign their friendship; and then they bestowed their alms, that they might in reality and by the effect confirm what they had represented by the kiss: all this appears evident from one of the homilies of Chrysostom ⁴⁷⁸⁴⁷⁸     It appears from Justin Martyr and Tertullian, that the early Christians kissed one another always after prayers, or at the end of the service. They did so, says Grotius, to “show that they were all equal; for the Persians and the orientals kissed the mouth of those only of the same rank, and gave their hands to be kissed by their inferiors.” It was evidently a custom among the Jews. See 2 Samuel 20:9; Luke 7:45; Matthew 26:49. This “holy kiss” is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26. It is called the kiss of love, or charity, by Peter, 1 Peter 5:14. It was one of those things which arose from peculiar habits, and is not be considered as binding on all nations, any more than the washing of feet. The Apostle’s object seems to have been, not to enjoin a rite, but to regulate a practice, already existing, and to preserve it from abuse: it was to be a holy kiss. — Ed. Hence has arisen that practice among the Papists at this day, of kissing the paten, and of bestowing an offering: the former of which is nothing but superstition without any benefit, the other serves no other purpose but to satisfy the avariciousness of the priests, if indeed it can be satisfied.

Paul however seems not here positively to have enjoined a ceremony, but only exhorts them to cherish brotherly love; and he distinguishes it from the profane friendships of the world, which, for the most part, are either disguised or attained by vices, or retained by wicked arts, and never tend to any good. By sending salutations from the Churches, ⁴⁷⁹⁴⁷⁹     Griesbach approves of τάσαι, “all,” after Churches: then it would be “all the Churches;” that is, of Greece, says Grotius, but of Corinth, says Wolfius, even those which assembled at different private houses: and this is a more likely supposition, than that Paul, according to Origen and others, took it as granted that all the Churches which he had founded wished well to the Church of Rome. That they wished well to it there can be no doubt; but it is not probable that Paul acted on such a supposition. — Ed. he was endeavoring, as much as he could, to bind all the members of Christ by the mutual bond of love.

17. And I beseech you, etc. He now adds an exhortation, by which all Churches have often need of being stirred up; for the ministers of Satan are ever ready to take occasion to disturb the kingdom of Christ: and they attempt to make disturbances in two ways; for they either sow discord, by which the minds of men are drawn away from the unity of truth, or they occasion offenses, by which men are alienated from the love of the gospel. ⁴⁸⁰⁴⁸⁰     The two words are διχοστασίαι and σκάνδαλα, divisions and offenses, or hindrances. He had, no doubt, in view, what he noticed in chapter 14, about eating and observing of days; and according to his usual manner he mentions first the effect — “divisions,” and then the cause — “offenses.” The Gentile Christians, by eating, gave offense to the believing Jews, and this offense led to a division or separation. The evils which he had previously attempted to correct were doubtless those referred to here. “Serving their own belly,” in the next verse, has in this respect an emphatic meaning. Instead of denying themselves in the use of meats for the sake of Christ, and for the peace of his Church, they preferred to gratify their own appetites. And being led away by their lust, they covered their real motive by kindly or plausibly addressing (χρηστολογία) and eulogizing (εὐλογία) those who joined them, imitating in this respect the arts of all false professors and zealots, whatever be the false principle by which they may be guided. — Ed. The former evil is done when the truth of God is mixed with new dogmas devised by men; and the latter takes place, when by various arts it is made odious and contemptible. He therefore bids all, who did either of these two things, to be observed, lest they should deceive and catch the unwary; and also to be shunned, for they were injurious. Nor was it without reason that he required this attention from the faithful; for it often happens through our neglect or want of care, that such wicked men do great harm to the Church, before they are opposed; and they also creep in, with astonishing subtlety, for the purpose of doing mischief, except they be carefully watched.

But observe, that he speaks of those who had been taught the pure truth of God. It is indeed an impious and sacrilegious attempt to divide those who agree in the truth of Christ: but yet it is a shameful sophistry to defend, under the pretext of peace and unity, a union in lies and impious doctrines. There is therefore no ground for the Papists to seek countenance from this passage, in order to raise ill-will against us; for we do not impugn and tear asunder the gospel of Christ, but the falsehoods of the devil, by which it has been hitherto obscured: nay, Paul clearly shows, that he did not condemn all kinds of discords, but those which destroyed consent in the orthodox faith; for the force of the passage is in the words, which ye have learnt; for it was the duty of the Romans, before they were rightly taught, to depart from the habits of their fathers and the institutions of their ancestors.