John Calvin Commentary Romans 14

Him indeed, etc. He now proceeds to lay down a precept especially necessary for the instruction of the Church: those who have made the most progress in Christian doctrine should accommodate themselves to the more ignorant and use their own strength to support the weakness of others.

For among God's people, some are weaker than others; if they are not treated with great tenderness and kindness, they will become discouraged and eventually alienated from religion.

It is very probable that this was especially the case at that time, as the Churches were composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Some of them, having been long accustomed to the rites of the Mosaic law and brought up in them from childhood, were not easily drawn away from them. Others, who had never learned such things, refused a yoke to which they were not accustomed.

Now, as human nature is prone to slide from differences in opinion to quarrels and contentions, the Apostle shows how those who differ in their opinions in this way can live together without any discord. He prescribes this as the best method: those who are strong should devote their efforts to assisting the weak, and those who have made the greatest advances should bear with the more ignorant. For God, in making us stronger than others, does not give us strength so that we might oppress the weak; nor is it characteristic of Christian wisdom to be excessively insolent and to despise others. The significance, then, of what he addresses to the more intelligent and already confirmed is this: the more abundant the grace they had received from the Lord, the more obligated they were to help their neighbors.

Not for the debatings of questions. This is an incomplete sentence, as a word necessary to complete the sense is missing. It appears evident, however, that he meant nothing other than that the weak should not be exhausted by fruitless disputes. But we must remember the subject he is now addressing: for as many of the Jews still clung to the shadows of the law, he indeed admits this was a fault in them, yet he requires that they should be excused for a time, because pressing the matter urgently on them might have shaken their faith.

He then calls those questions contentious that disturb a mind not yet sufficiently established or that involve it in doubts. It may also be appropriate to extend this further, to include any thorny and difficult questions by which weak consciences may be unsettled and disturbed without any edification. Therefore, we ought to consider what questions anyone is able to bear and accommodate our teaching to the capacity of individuals.

Let him who believes, etc. What Erasmus has followed among the various readings I do not know; but he has mutilated this sentence, which, in Paul’s words, is complete. Instead of the relative article, he has improperly introduced alius — one, “One indeed believes,” etc. That I take the infinitive for an imperative should not seem unnatural or strained, for it is a very usual way of speaking for Paul.

He then calls those believers who were endowed with a fully satisfied conscience; he allowed these the use of all things without any difference. Meanwhile, the weak ate herbs and abstained from those things whose use he thought was not lawful.

If the common version is more approved, the meaning then will be — that it is not right for him who freely eats all things, believing them to be lawful, to require those who are still tender and weak in faith to walk by the same rule.

But to translate 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.

Those who were strong had this fault—they despised as superstitious those who were scrupulous about insignificant things and also derided them. These, on the other hand, could hardly refrain from rash judgments, so as not to condemn what they did not follow, for whatever they perceived to be contrary to their own sentiments, they thought was evil.

Therefore, he exhorts the former to refrain from contempt and the latter from excessive moroseness. And the reason he adds, since it belongs to both parties, ought to be applied to these two instructions: “When you see,” he says, “a person illuminated with the knowledge of God, you have evidence enough that he is received by the Lord; if you either despise or condemn him, you reject him whom God has embraced.”

Who are you who judge, etc.? “Just as you would act discourteously, indeed, and presumptuously among people, if you were to subject another person’s servant to your own rules and judge all his actions by the rule of your own will, so you assume too much if you condemn anything in God’s servant because it does not please you. For it does not belong to you to prescribe to him what to do and what not to do, nor is it necessary for him to live according to your law.”

Now, although the power of judging both the person and the deed is taken from us, there is still much difference between the two. For we ought to leave the person, whoever they may be, to the judgment of God. Regarding their deeds, however, we may indeed form a decisive opinion—though not according to our own views, but according to the word of God; and the judgment derived from his word is neither human judgment nor another person’s judgment.

Paul, then, intended here to restrain us from presumption in judging, into which those fall who dare to pronounce anything concerning the actions of people without the warrant of God’s word.

To his own Lord he stands or falls, etc. It is as if he said: “It rightly belongs to the Lord either to disapprove or to accept what his servant does; therefore, the one who attempts to take this authority for himself robs the Lord.”

And he adds, he shall indeed stand: By saying this, he not only instructs us to abstain from condemning but also exhorts us to mercy and kindness, so that we always hope well for the one in whom we perceive anything of God.

This is because the Lord has given us a hope that he will fully confirm and lead to perfection those in whom he has begun the work of grace.

But by referring to the power of God, he does not simply mean, as if he had said, that God can do this if he wills. Rather, as is usual in Scripture, he connects God’s will with his power.

And yet he is not speaking here of perpetuity, as if those whom God has once raised up must stand to the end. Instead, he only reminds us that we are to maintain a good hope and that our judgments should lean in this direction, as he also teaches us in another place:

He who began in you a good work, will perform it to the end. (Philippians 1:6)

In short, Paul shows in what direction the judgments of those in whom love abounds incline.

One indeed, etc. He had spoken before of scruples in the choice of meats; he now adds another example of difference, that is, concerning days, and both these arose from Judaism. For as the Lord in his law made a distinction between meats and pronounced some to be unclean, prohibiting their use, and as he had also appointed festal and solemn days and commanded their observance, the Jews, who had been brought up from their childhood in the teaching of the law, would not lay aside that reverence for days which they had held from the beginning and to which they had been accustomed throughout their lives. Nor could they have dared to touch those meats from which they had so long abstained.

That they were imbued with these ideas was an evidence of their weakness; they would have thought otherwise had they possessed a certain and clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining from what they thought to be unlawful, they showed piety, as it would have been a proof of presumption and contempt had they done anything contrary to the promptings of their conscience.

Here then the Apostle applies the best rule, when he instructs everyone to be fully assured in his own mind. By this, he intimates that there ought to be in Christians such a concern for obedience that they do nothing except what they think, or rather feel assured, is pleasing to God.

And this ought to be thoroughly kept in mind: it is the first principle of right conduct that individuals should be dependent on the will of God and never allow themselves to move even a finger while their minds are doubtful and wavering. For it cannot be otherwise than that rashness will soon turn into obstinacy when we dare to proceed further than what we are persuaded is lawful for us.

If anyone objects, saying that infirmity is always perplexing and that, therefore, such certainty as Paul requires cannot exist in the weak, the plain answer to this is that such individuals are to be pardoned if they keep themselves within their own limits.

For Paul’s purpose was no other than to restrain excessive liberty, which leads many to thrust themselves, as it were, randomly into matters that are doubtful and unresolved. Therefore, Paul requires that this be adopted: that the will of God is to preside over all our actions.