Romans 14:22-23
- Tu fidem habes? apud teipsum habe
coram Deo. Beatus qui non judicat seipsum in eo
quod examinat. - Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before
God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself
in that thing which he alloweth. - Qui verb dijudicat si comederit
condemnatus est; quia non ex fide: quicquid vero
non est ex fide, peccatum est. - And he that doubteth is damned if he eat,
because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is
not of faith is sin.
22.Hast thou faith? In order to conclude, he shows in what consists the advantage of Christian
liberty: it hence appears, that they boast falsely of liberty who know not how to make a right use
of it. He then says, that liberty really understood, as it is that of faith, has properly a regard to God;
so that he who is endued with a conviction of this kind, ought to be satisfied with peace of conscience
before God; nor is it needful for him to show before men that he possesses it. It hence follows, that
if we offend our weak brethren by eating meats, it is through a perverse opinion; for there is no
necessity to constrain us.
It is also plainly evident how strangely perverted is this passage by some, who hence conclude,
that it is not material how devoted any one may be to the observance of foolish and superstitious
ceremonies, provided the conscience remains pure before God. Paul indeed intended nothing less,
as the context clearly shows; for ceremonies are appointed for the worship of God, and they are
also a part of our confession: they then who tear off faith from confession, take away from the sun
its own heat. But Paul handles nothing of this kind in this place, but only speaks of our liberty in
the use of meat and drink.
Happy is he who condemns not himself, etc. Here he means to teach us, first, how we may
lawfully use the gifts of God; and, secondly, how great an impediment ignorance is; and he thus
teaches us, lest we should urge the uninstructed beyond the limits of their infirmity. But he lays
down a general truth, which extends to all actions, — “Happy,” he says, “is he who is not conscious
of doing wrong, when he rightly examines his own deeds.” For it happens, that many commit the
worst of crimes without any scruple of conscience; but this happens, because they rashly abandon
themselves, with closed eyes, to any course to which the blind and violent intemperance of the
flesh may lead them; for there is much difference between insensibility and a right judgment. He
then who examines things is happy, provided he is not bitten by an accusing conscience, after
having honestly considered and weighed matters; for this assurance alone can render our works
pleasing to God. Thus is removed that vain excuse which many allege on the ground of ignorance;
inasmuch as their error is connected with insensibility and sloth: for if what they call good intention
is sufficient, their examination, according to which the Spirit of God estimates the deeds of men,
is superfluous.^434
in the way; and, in the third place, the weakening of the faith of the individual. The real order of the process is the reverse, —
the weakening, then the impediment, and, lastly, the stumblingblock which occasions the fall. — Ed.(^434) The version of Calvin is, “Beatus qui non judicat seipsum in eo quod examinat,” μ μ μ ; the latter
part is rendered by Beza, and Piscator, “in eo quod approbat — in that which he approves;” by Doddridge, “in the thing which
he alloweth;” by Macknight, “by what he approveth.” The reference is no doubt to the strong, who had “faith,” who believed
all meats lawful. The verb means to try, to examine, as well as to approve; but the latter seems to be its meaning here. To approve
and to have faith appears in this case to be the same: then to have faith and not to abuse it by giving offense to a brother was to