Romans 14:23

Verse 23. And he that doubteth] This verse is a necessary part of the preceding, and should be read thus: But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. The meaning is sufficiently plain. He that feeds on any kind of meats prohibited by the Mosaic law, with the persuasion in his mind that he may be wrong in so doing, is condemned by his conscience for doing that which he has reason to think God has forbidden.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.] Whatever he does, without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, (see Ro 14:22) is to him sin; for he does it under a conviction that he may be wrong in so doing. Therefore, if he makes a distinction in his own conscience between different kinds of meats, and yet eats of all indifferently, he is a sinner before God; because he eats either through false shame, base compliance, or an unbridled appetite; and any of these is in itself a sin against the sincerity, ingenuousness, and self-denying principles of the Gospel of Christ.

Some think that these words have a more extensive signification, and that they apply to all who have not true religion, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; every work of such persons being sinful in the sight of a holy God, because it does not proceed from a pure motive. On this ground our Church says, Art. xiii, "Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they are not of faith in Jesus Christ; yes, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." To this we may add, that without faith it is impossible to please God; every thing is wrong where this principle is wanting.

There are few readers who have not remarked that the last three verses of this epistle (Ro 16:25-27) appear to stand in their present place without any obvious connection; and apparently after the epistle is concluded. And it is well known to critics, that two MSS. in uncial letters, the Cod. A and I, with upwards of 100 others, together with the Slavonic, the later Syriac and Arabic, add those verses at the end of the fourteenth chapter. The transposition is acknowledged by Cyril, Chrysostom, Theodoret, OEcumenius, Theophylact, Theodulus, Damascenus, and Tertullian; see Wetstein. Griesbach inserts them at the end of this chapter as their proper place; and most learned men approve of this transposition. It may be necessary to repeat the words here that the reader may see with what propriety they connect with the subject which terminates the fourteenth chapter as it now stands.

Ro 14:23: And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Ro 16:25: Now, to him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, (according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began,

Ro 16:26: But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith;)

Ro 16:27: To God only wise be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Ro 15:1: We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, c.

These words certainly connect better with the close of the fourteenth chapter and the beginning of the fifteenth than they do with the conclusion of the sixteenth, where they are now generally found but I shall defer my observations upon them till I come to that place, with only this remark, that the stablishing mentioned Ro 16:25, corresponds well with the doubting, Ro 14:23, and indeed the whole matter of these verses agrees so well with the subject so largely handled in the preceding chapter, that there can be very little doubt of their being in their proper place if joined to the end of this chapter, as they are in the preceding MSS. and versions.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14:23 If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning: God’s word defines sin for us, yet sin also involves violating our conscience. The weak Christians in Rome did not yet believe in their own hearts that they could eat meat, drink wine, or ignore Jewish holy days; their consciences were still weak. They should not violate their consciences on these matters. Nor should the strong, by the power of their example or by their scorn, force weak Christians to do so.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 14:23. Ὁ δὲ) The reason, why the stronger ought not to induce the weak to eat.—ἐὰν φάγῃ, if he eat) This must be understood both of a single act and much more of frequent eating.—κατακέκριται, is condemned) Comp. Gal 2:11, note.—ἐκ πίστεως, of faith) of which Rom 14:2; Rom 14:5 at the end, 14 at the beginning, 22. Therefore it is faith itself that is indicated, by which men are reckoned to be believers, informing and confirming, as it does, the conscience, and constituting partly the foundation and partly the standard of upright conduct.—ἁμαρτία, sin) and therefore obnoxious to condemnation.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:23 . ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ κατακέκριται : such, on the other hand, is the unhappy situation of the weak a new motive for charity. For διακριν . cf. Rom 4:20 , Jas 1:6 , Mar 11:23 . The weak Christian cannot be clear in his own mind that it is permissible to do as the strong does; it may be, he thinks one moment, and the next, it may not be; and if he follows the strong and eats in this state of mind, κατακέκριται he is condemned. The condemnation is absolute: it is not only that his own conscience pronounces clearly against him after the act, but that such action incurs the condemnation of God. It is inconsistent with that conscientiousness through which alone man can be trained in goodness; the moral life would become chaotic and irredeemable if conscience were always to be treated so. ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως , sc. , ἔφαγεν . The man is condemned because he did not eat ἐκ πίστεως : and this is generalised in the last clause πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν . All that is not of faith is sin; and therefore this eating, as not of faith, is sin. It is impossible to give πίστις here a narrower sense than Christianity: see Rom 14:1 . Everything a Christian man does that cannot justify itself to him on the ground of his relation to Christ is sin. It is too indefinite to render omne quod non est ex fide as Thomas Aquinas does by omne quod est contra conscientiam : it would need to be contra Christianam conscientiam . All a man cannot do remembering that he is Christ’s all he cannot do with the judgment-seat (Rom 14:10 ) and the Cross (Rom 14:15 ) and all their restraints and inspirations present to his mind is sin. Of course this is addressed to Christians, and there is no rule in it for judging the character or conduct of those who do not know Christ. To argue from it that works done before justification are sin, or that the virtues of the heathen are glittering vices, is to misapply it altogether.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_14:23

But he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. That is, however sure a man may be that what he does is right, he cannot expect others to act on his faith. If a man thinks a thing to be wrong, to him it is wrong. He, therefore, who is uncertain whether God has commanded him to abstain from certain meats, and who notwithstanding indulges in them, evidently sins; he brings himself under condemnation. Because whatever is not of faith is sin; i.e., whatever we do which we are not certain is right, to us is wrong. The sentiment of this verse, therefore, is nearly the same as of Rom_14:14. To him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. There is evidently a sinful disregard of the divine authority on the part of a man who does anything which he supposes God has forbidden, or which he is not certain he has allowed. The principle of morals contained in this verse is so obvious, that it occurs frequently in the writings of ancient philosophers. Cicero de Officiis, lib. 1, c. 9. Quodcirca bene praecipiunt, qui vetant quidquam agere, quod dubites aequum sit, an iniqunm. Aequitas enim lucet ipsa per se: dubitatio cogitationem significat injuriae. This passage has an obvious bearing on the design of the apostle. He wished to convince the stronger Christians that it was unreasonable in them to expect their weaker brethren to act according to their faith; and that it was sinful in them so to use their liberty as to induce these scrupulous Christians to violate their own consciences.‹75›

Doctrine

1. The fellowship of the saints is not to be broken for unessential matters; in other words, we have no right to make any thing a condition of Christian communion which is compatible with piety. Paul evidently argues on the principle that if a man is a true Christian, he should be recognized and treated as such. If God has received him, we should receive him, Rom_14:1-12.

2. The true criterion of a Christian character is found in the governing purpose of the life. He that lives unto the Lord, i.e. he who makes the will of Christ the rule of his conduct, and the glory of Christ his constant object, is a true Christian, although from weakness or ignorance he may sometimes mistake the rule of duty, and consider certain things obligatory which Christ has never commanded, Rom_14:6-8.

3. Jesus Christ must be truly God,

1. Because he is the Lord, according to whose will and for whose glory we are to live, Rom_14:6-8.

2. Because he exercises an universal dominion over the living and the dead, Rom_14:9.

3. Because he is the final judge of all men, Rom_14:10.

4. Because passages of the Old Testament which are spoken of Jehovah, are by the apostle applied to Christ, Rom_14:11.

5. Because, throughout this passage, Paul speaks of God and Christ indiscriminately, in a manner which shows that he regarded Christ as God.

To live unto Christ is to live unto God; to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ is to give an account unto God; to submit to Christ is to bow the knee to Jehovah.

4. The gospel does not make religion to consist in external observances. Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better; neither if we eat not are we the worse, Rom_14:6, Rom_14:7.

5. Though a thing may be lawful, it is not always expedient. The use of the liberty which every Christian enjoys under the gospel, is to be regulated by the law of love; hence it is often morally wrong to do what, in itself considered, may be innocent, Rom_14:15, Rom_14:20, Rom_14:21.

6. It is a great error in morals, and a great practical evil, to make that sinful which is in fact innocent. Christian love never requires this or any other sacrifice of truth. Paul would not consent, for the sake of avoiding offense, that eating all kinds of food, even what had been offered to idols, or disregarding sacred festivals of human appointment, should be made a sin; he strenuously and openly maintained the reverse. He represents those who thought differently, as weak in faith, as being under an error, from which more knowledge and more piety would free them. Concession to their weakness he enjoins on a principle perfectly consistent with the assertion of the truth, and with the preservation of Christian liberty, Rom_14:13-23.

7. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It is wrong to do anything which we think to be wrong. The converse of this proposition, however, is not true. It is not always right to do what we think to be right. Paul, before his conversion, thought it right to persecute Christians; the Jews thought they did God service when they cast the disciples of the Savior out of the synagogue. The cases, therefore, are not parallel. When we do what we think God has forbidden, we are evidently guilty of disobedience or contempt of the divine authority. But when we do what we think he has required, we may act under a culpable mistake; or, although we may have the judgment that the act in itself is right, our motives for doing it may be very wicked. The state of mind under which Paul and other Jews persecuted the early Christians, was evil, though the persecution itself they regarded as a duty. It is impossible that a man should have right motives for doing a wrong action; for the very mistake as to what is right, vitiates the motives. The mistake implies a wrong state of mind; and, on the other hand, the misapprehension of truth produces a wrong state of mind. There may, therefore, be a very sinful zeal for God and religion (see Rom_10:2); and no man will be able to plead at the bar of judgment, his good intention as an excuse for evil conduct, Rom_14:23.

Remarks

1. Christians should not allow anything to alienate them from their brethren, who afford credible evidence that they are the servants of God. Owing to ignorance, early prejudice, weakness of faith, and other causes, there may and must exist a diversity of opinion and practice on minor points of duty. But this diversity is no sufficient reason for rejecting from Christian fellowship any member of the family of Christ. It is, however, one thing to recognize a man as a Christian, and another to recognize him as a suitable minister of a church, organized on a particular form of government and system of doctrines, Rom_14:1-12.

2. A denunciatory or censorious spirit is hostile to the spirit of the gospel. It is an encroachment on the prerogatives of the only Judge of the heart and conscience: it blinds the mind to moral distinctions, and prevents the discernment between matters unessential and those vitally important; and it leads us to forget our own accountableness, and to over look our own faults, in our zeal to denounce those of others, Rom_14:4-10.

3. It is sinful to indulge contempt for those whom we suppose to be our inferiors, Rom_14:3, Rom_14:10.

4. Christians should remember that, living or dying, they are the Lords. This imposes the obligation to observe his will and to seek his glory; and it affords the assurance that the Lord will provide for all their wants. This peculiar propriety in his own people, Christ has obtained by his death and resurrection, Rom_14:8, Rom_14:9.

5. We should stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and not allow our consciences to be brought under the yoke of bondage to human opinions. There is a strong tendency in men to treat, as matters of conscience, things which God has never enjoined. Wherever this disposition has been indulged or submitted to, it has resulted in bringing one class of men under the most degrading bondage to another; and in the still more serious evil of leading them to disregard the authority of God. Multitudes who would be shocked at the thought of eating meat on Friday, commit the greatest moral offenses without the slightest compunction. It is, therefore, of great importance to keep the conscience free; under no subjection but to truth and God. This is necessary, not only on account of its influence on our own moral feelings, but also because nothing but truth can really do good. To advocate even a good cause with bad arguments does great harm, by exciting unnecessary opposition; by making good men, who oppose the arguments, appear to oppose the truth; by introducing a false standard of duty; by failing to enlist the support of an enlightened conscience, and by the necessary forfeiture of the confidence of the intelligent and well informed. The cause of benevolence, therefore, instead of being promoted, is injured by all exaggerations, erroneous statements, and false principles, on the part of its advocates, Rom_14:14, Rom_14:22.

6. It is obviously incumbent on every man to endeavor to obtain and promote right views of duty, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of others. It is often necessary to assert our Christian liberty at the expense of incurring censure, and offending even good men, in order that right principles of duty may be preserved. Our Savior consented to be regarded as a Sabbath-breaker, and even a wine-bibber and friend of publicans and sinners; but wisdom was justified of her children. Christ did not in these cases see fit to accommodate his conduct to the rule of duty set up, and conscientiously regarded as correct by those around him. He saw that more good would arise from a practical disregard of the false opinions of the Jews, as to the manner in which the Sabbath was to be kept, and as to the degree of intercourse which was allowed with wicked men, than from concession to their prejudices. Enlightened benevolence often requires a similar course of conduct, and a similar exercise of self-denial on the part of his disciples.

7. While Christian liberty is to be maintained, and right principles of duty inculcated, every concession consistent with truth and good morals should be made for the sake of peace and the welfare of others. It is important, however, that the duty of making such concessions should be placed on the right ground, and be urged in a right spirit, not as a thing to be demanded, but as that which the law of love requires. In this way success is more certain and more extensive, and the concomitant results are all good. It may at times be a difficult practical question, whether most good would result from compliance with the prejudices of others, or from disregarding them. But where there is a sincere desire to do right, and a willingness to sacrifice our own inclinations for the good of others, connected with prayer for divine direction, there can be little danger of serious mistake. Evil is much more likely to arise from a disregard of the opinions and the welfare of our brethren, and from a reliance on our own judgment, than from any course requiring self-denial, Rom_14:13, Rom_14:15, Rom_14:20, Rom_14:21.

8. Conscience, or a sense of duty, is not the only, and perhaps not the most important principle to be appealed to in support of benevolent enterprises. It comes in aid, and gives its sanction to all other right motives, but we find the sacred writers appealing most frequently to the benevolent and pious feelings; to the example of Christ; to a sense of our obligations to him; to the mutual relation of Christians, and their common connection with the Redeemer, etc., as motives to self-denial and devotedness, Rom_14:15, Rom_14:21.

9. As the religion of the gospel consists in the inward graces of the Holy Spirit, all who have these graces should be recognized as genuine Christians; being acceptable to God, they should be loved and cherished by his people, notwithstanding their weakness or errors, Rom_14:17, Rom_14:18.

10. The peace and edification of the church are to be sought at all sacrifices except those of truth and duty; and the work of God is not to be destroyed or injured for the sake of any personal or party interests, Rom_14:13, Rom_14:20.

11. An enlightened conscience is a great blessing; it secures the liberty of the soul from bondage to the opinions of men, and from the self-inflicted pains of a scrupulous and morbid state of moral feeling; it promotes the right exercise of all the virtuous affections, and the right discharge of all relative duties, Rom_14:22.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Reasoneth with himself.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

And--rather, "But"

he that doubteth is damned--On the word "damnation," see on Rom 13:2.

if he eat, because he eateth not of faith--On the meaning of "faith" here, see on Rom 14:22.

for whatsoever is not of faith is sin--a maxim of unspeakable importance in the Christian life.

Note, (1) Some points in Christianity are unessential to Christian fellowship; so that though one may be in error upon them, he is not on that account to be excluded either from the communion of the Church or from the full confidence of those who have more light. This distinction between essential and non-essential truths is denied by some who affect more than ordinary zeal for the honor and truth of God. But they must settle the question with our apostle. (2) Acceptance with God is the only proper criterion of right to Christian fellowship. Whom God receives, men cannot lawfully reject (Rom 14:3-4). (3) As there is much self-pleasing in setting up narrow standards of Christian fellowship, so one of the best preservatives against the temptation to do this will be found in the continual remembrance that CHRIST is the one Object for whom all Christians live, and to whom all Christians die; this will be such a living and exalted bond of union between the strong and the weak as will overshadow all their lesser differences and gradually absorb them (Rom 14:7-9). (4) The consideration of the common judgment-seat at which the strong and the weak shall stand together will be found another preservative against the unlovely disposition to sit in judgment one on another (Rom 14:10-12). (5) How brightly does the supreme Divinity of Christ shine out in this chapter! The exposition itself supersedes further illustration here. (6) Though forbearance be a great Christian duty, indifference to the distinction between truth and error is not thereby encouraged. The former is, by the tax, made an excuse for the latter. But our apostle, while teaching "the strong" to bear with "the weak," repeatedly intimates in this chapter where the truth really lay on the points in question, and takes care to call those who took the wrong side "the weak" (Rom 14:1-2, Rom 14:14). (7) With what holy jealousy ought the purity of the conscience to be guarded, since every deliberate violation of it is incipient perdition (Rom 14:15, Rom 14:20)! Some, who seem to be more jealous for the honor of certain doctrines than for the souls of men, enervate this terrific truth by asking how it bears upon the "perseverance of the saints"; the advocates of that doctrine thinking it necessary to explain away what is meant by "destroying the work of God" (Rom 14:20), and "destroying him for whom Christ died" (Rom 14:15), for fear of the doctrinal consequences of taking it nakedly; while the opponents of that doctrine are ready to ask, How could the apostle have used such language if he had believed that such a catastrophe was impossible? The true answer to both lies in dismissing the question as impertinent. The apostle is enunciating a great and eternal principle in Christian Ethics--that the wilful violation of conscience contains within itself a seed of destruction; or, to express it otherwise, that the total destruction of the work of God in the renewed soul, and, consequently, the loss of that soul for eternity, needs only the carrying out to its full effect of such violation of the conscience. Whether such effects do take place, in point of fact, the apostle gives not the most distant hint here; and therefore that point must be settled elsewhere. But, beyond all doubt, as the position we have laid down is emphatically expressed by the apostle, so the interests of all who call themselves Christians require to be proclaimed and pressed on every suitable occasion. (8) Zeal for comparatively small points of truth is a poor substitute for the substantial and catholic and abiding realities of the Christian life (Rom 14:17-18). (9) "Peace" among the followers of Christ is a blessing too precious to themselves, and, as a testimony to them that are without, too important, to be ruptured for trifles, even though some lesser truths be involved in these (Rom 14:19-20). Nor are those truths themselves disparaged or endangered thereby, but the reverse. (10) Many things which are lawful are not expedient. In the use of any liberty, therefore, our question should be, not simply, Is this lawful? but even if so, Can it be used with safety to a brother's conscience?--How will it affect my brother's soul (Rom 14:21)? It is permitted to no Christian to say with Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). (11) Whenever we are in doubt as to a point of duty--where abstinence is manifestly sinless, but compliance not clearly lawful--the safe course is ever to be preferred, for to do otherwise is itself sinful. (12) How exalted and beautiful is the Ethics of Christianity--by a few great principles teaching us how to steer our course amidst practical difficulties, with equal regard to Christian liberty, love, and confidence!

Next: Romans Chapter 15

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

23. But he who is undecided, etc. He very fitly expresses in one word the character of that mind which vacillates and is uncertain as to what ought to be done; for he who is undecided undergoes alternate changes, and in the midst of his various deliberations is held suspended by uncertainty. As then the main thing in a good work is the persuasion of a mind conscious of being right before God, and as it were a calm assurance, nothing is more opposed to the acceptance of our works than vacillation. And, oh! that this truth were fixed in the minds of men, that nothing ought to be attempted except what the mind feels assured is acceptable to God, men would not then make such an uproar, as they often do now, nor waver, nor blindly hurry onward wherever their own imagination may lead them. For if our way of living is to be confined to this moderation, that no one is to touch a morsel of meat with a doubting conscience, how much greater caution is to be exercised in the greatest things?

And whatever is not from faith, etc. The reason for this condemnation is, that every work, however splendid and excellent in appearance, is counted as sin, except it be founded on a right conscience; for God regards not the outward display, but the inward obedience of the heart, by this alone is an estimate made of our works. Besides, how can that be obedience, when any one undertakes what he is not persuaded is approved by God? Where then such a doubt exists, the individual is justly charged with prevarication; for he proceeds in opposition to the testimony of his own conscience.

The word faith is to be taken here for a fixed persuasion of the mind, or, so to speak, for a firm assurance, and not that of any kind, but what is derived from the truth of God. Hence doubt or uncertainty vitiates all our actions, however specious they may otherwise be. Now, since a pious mind can never acquiesce with certainty in anything but the word of God, all fictitious modes of worship do in this case vanish away, and whatever works there may be which originate in the brains of men; for while everything which is not from faith is condemned, rejected is whatever is not supported and approved by God’s word. It is at the same time by no means sufficient that what we do is approved by the word of God, except the mind, relying on this persuasion, prepares itself cheerfully to do its work. Hence the first thing in a right conduct, in order that our minds may at no time fluctuate, is this, that we, depending on God’s word, confidently proceed wherever it may call us.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(23) And he that doubteth.—The one thing which justifies a man in neglecting such nice and punctilious distinctions is a faith so strong that it can afford to make light of them. Where faith is not strong enough for this, and where the conscience deliberately approves one course, and the other course is chosen, this alone stamps the act as wrong. “He who hesitates as to what he ought to do is condemned, or does wrong, if he eats (in opposition to his conscience), for he has not the one faculty which can overrule the decisions of conscience, and give them a different direction.”

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.—This is intended as a general principle, but only as a general principle covering this particular kind of case. Where the conscience is in doubt, faith alone can make it right to choose the side against which conscience inclines. Nothing is said about those cases in which conscience is either not appealed to at all, or approves what is done. Hence St. Augustine was wrong in arguing from this passage that even good actions, when done by unbelievers, were of the nature of sin.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. And he that doubteth] This verse, like the last clause, is really aimed at the “strong” Christian’s mistaken conduct. He is reminded of the real sin he may occasion in his “weak” fellow-Christian. See last note but one.

doubteth] He whose conscience is not at ease on the question of “meats.”

is damned] Lit. hath been condemned. The perfect gives the thought that ipso facto, then and there, he passes under God’s sentence of displeasure, as a rebellious child.

The idea of eternal doom is not, of course, at all inherent in the words; the sentence may be only one of merciful chastening. But even thus, this verse is a suggestive comment on the Divine view of the sinfulness of the lightest transgressions.

not of faith] i.e. he “takes a liberty,” not on the right principle but on the wrong; not from clear conviction that it is authorized by his acceptance in Christ by faith, but from neglect of conscience. And all such acts, as being results of a known wrong principle, are sins.

It is plain from the context that St Paul does not assert that every act is sinful which is not directly based on conscious faith in Christ; but that every act of “liberty” of the kind in question, not so based, is sinful; for it can be based only on neglect of conscience.

for] Lit. but, or now; the argumentative word.

At the close of this chapter many MSS. place the Great Doxology, Rom_16:25-27. See on this question, Introduction, ii. § 3.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Ver. 23. Is damned] Both of his doubting conscience, which soundeth heavily, as a shaulm; and of God, who is greater than his conscience.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He that doubteth - He that is not fully satisfied in his mind; who does not do it with a clear conscience. The margin has it rendered correctly, “He that discerneth and putteth a difference between meats.” He that conscientiously believes, as the Jew did, that the Levitical law respecting the difference between meats was binding on Christians.

Is damned - We apply this word almost exclusively to the future punishment of the wicked in hell. But it is of importance to remember, in reading the Bible, that this is not of necessity its meaning. It means properly to “condemn;” and here it means only that the person who should thus violate the dictates of his conscience would incur guilt, and would be blameworthy in doing it. But it does not affirm that he would inevitably sink to hell. The same construction is to be put on the expression in 1Co 11:29, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

For whatsoever ... - “Whatever is not done with a full conviction that it is right, is sinful; whatever is done when a man doubts whether it is right, is sin.” This is evidently the fair interpretation of this place. Such the connection requires. It does not affirm that all or any of the actions of impenitent and unbelieving people are sinful, which is true, but not the truth taught here; nor does it affirm that all acts which are not performed by those who have faith in the Lord Jesus, are sinful; but the discussion pertains to Christians; and the whole scope of the passage requires us to understand the apostle as simply saying that a man should not do a thing doubting its correctness; that he should have a strong conviction that what he does is right; and that if he has “not” this conviction, it is sinful. The rule is of universal application. In all cases, if a man does a thing which he does not “believe” to be right, it is a sin, and his conscience will condemn him for it. It may be proper, however, to observe that the converse of this is not always true, that if a man believes a thing to be right, that therefore it is not sin. For many of the persecutors were conscientious Joh 16:2; Act 26:9; and the murderers of the Son of God did it ignorantly Act 3:17; 1Co 2:8; and yet were adjudged as guilty of enormous crimes; compare Luk 11:50-51; Act 2:23, Act 2:37.

In this chapter we have a remarkably fine discussion of the nature of Christian charity. Differences of “opinion” will arise, and people will be divided into various sects; but if the rules which are laid down in this chapter were followed, the contentions, and altercations, and strifes among Christians would cease. Had these rules been applied to the controversies about rites, and forms, and festivals, that have arisen, peace might have been preserved. Amid all such differences, the great question is, whether there is true love to the Lord Jesus. If there is, the apostle teaches us that we have no right to judge a brother, or despise him, or contend harshly with him. Our object should be to promote peace, to aid him in his efforts to become holy, and to seek to build him up in holy faith.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He that discerneth, or who judgeth that he ought to abstain from such meats, if he eat, is self-condemned, because he acts not according to his faith. For whatever a man doth, and is not according to what he believeth he may do, or whatever is against a man’s conscience, is sinful in him. It is a mistake of the sense of this place, to pretend that every moral action done by an infidel, must needs be a sin, as when he gives an alms to relieve the necessities of the poor. (Witham) --- Discerneth. That is, distinguished between meats, and eateth against his conscience, what he deems unclean. --- Of faith. By faith is here understood judgment and conscience: to act against which is always a sin. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

In this verse is another aphorism, respecting especially the weaker Christian.

He that doubteth of the lawfullness of any meat, whether he may or may not eat it,

is damned if he eat, i.e. His own conscience condemns him, or he makes himself liable to damnation,

because he eateth not of faith. The word eateth is not in the original, but it is aptly inserted by our translators. What a man doth doubtingly, he doth sinfully: he showeth a wicked heart, that is not afraid of sin, but in great readiness to commit it.

For whatsoever is not of faith is sin; this is a confirmation of the foregoing assertion. By faith here is meant knowledge, or full persuasion, as Rom 14:22; q.d. Whatever a man doth with a wavering mind, without being persuaded that it is pleasing to God, and warranted by his word, he sinneth in the doing of it. Though we may not nourish doubts and scruples, yet we must not act against them. An erring conscience binds us to act nothing contrary to it: he sins that doth any thing against it, though the fact or thing done should not be sinful. Nature itself teacheth as much: that is a known saying of Cicero: Quod dubitas, aequum sit an iniquum, ne feceris: If thou doubtest whether a thing be lawful, or not lawful, thou shalt not do it. See Heb 11:6.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. And—Rather, but. He whose obscure faith in Christ allows him to believe meat a criminal matter, and so both doubts and eats, is not happy, but self-condemned. His conscience and conduct are at war, and he is wretched, though not perhaps as bad as he thinks himself. Yet his case is bad. He has intended to do wrong. And even though the objective act was not intrinsically wrong, its rightness was an accident; the unhappy man has really in his heart purposed to violate the law of right. Dr. Hodge pertinently says, “It is wrong to do any thing which we think to be wrong. The converse of this proposition is not true. It is not always right to do what we think to be right.”

Damned—Is here used in its old English sense, condemned; that is, condemned by himself and condemned by God; not necessarily eternally ruined.

Eateth not of faith—He eats not according to the clear free faith of the strong man, for that would have banished his doubt and reconciled his conscience and conduct. He eats not according to his own feeble faith, for that authorizes the doubt by which he is self-condemned. He acts from no Christian or moral faith or principle at all, but from an unholy impulse.

Not of faith is sin—The Christian’s whole true life is a life of faith which faith authorizes every innocent act. Whatever comes not from that is transgression. The Augustinian argument (noticed by Alford, and in Lange’s Commentary on the passage) drawn from this clause, showing the non-salvability of infidels and heathen, has no force. We do not, nevertheless, obviate it by the methods of the commentators just named. The faith described in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews was a faith of those who never knew Christ, yet was a faith intrinsically equivalent to a faith in Christ. Faith, through all the dispensation of mankind, (and in some sense every man is by himself a dispensation,) is intrinsically and essentially the same principle. (See note on Rom_2:6.) And whatever is not of this faith is sin, and whose hath not this faith is eternally damned.

There is a formidable authority of manuscripts in favour of inserting here the doxology which stands at the end of the Epistle. This is obviously a most unsuitable place, as there is nothing here in the train of thought to awaken so lofty a strain. The most natural solution of the fact of its being here placed is that the customary reading of the Epistle in the Churches (see page 5) ended here, (the remainder of the Epistle being held of a less edifying character and so not read,) with the closing doxology superadded. A few manuscripts have the doxology in both places, and a few others entirely omit it.

Upon the fact of its prevalent insertion here, Renan, following in the train of adverse German criticism, founds the assumption that the Epistle properly terminates here, and that the after parts are but partially genuine. But as he feels obliged to admit the genuineness of several passages in this portion of the Epistle, his picking and culling other parts for opinions become so capricious and artificial that his whole criticism breaks down.

He furnishes a theory of his own, that Romans is truly an Encyclical Epistle. That is, the body of it was written for and sent to several of the principal Churches, with different Introduction and Conclusion in each, suited to its particular Church, and that “the editors” have appended several different conclusions to the existing copy. But these “editors,” we have given reason to believe, are imaginary beings. (See p. 5.) If they existed soon after the writing of the Epistle, both they and their readers would have seen the mistake; if long after, they could never have called in the various copies scattered through the Christian world, so but that a variety of introductions as well as terminations would have been extant at the present day.

Renan says there are properly four endings of the Epistle, namely, at Rom_15:33; Rom_16:20; Rom_16:24 and Rom_16:27. But Renan is too parsimonious. If a doxology or a benediction closing up a topic, with, perhaps, an Amen, is an ending of the Epistle, there are no less than seven such endings. And this calls to view the fact that Romans is not only the most climactic and triumphal, (see note Rom_8:39,) but the most doxological of all Paul’s Epistles. God the Creator wakes a doxology at Rom_1:25; Christ the Redeemer at Rom_9:5; God the divine Governor at Rom_11:36. A benediction upon his entire audience of Roman readers is pronounced at Rom_15:33; upon his circle of saluted brethren at Rom_16:20; and upon the double circle of saluters and saluted at Rom_16:24. Then, with all suitableness, the whole is closed with the grand doxology of Rom_16:26-27. This survey of the whole entirely dispenses with all the theories of “separate pieces of parchment,” “various times of writing,” “fourfold endings,” “encyclical epistles,” etc., which commentators, critics, and sceptics have so needlessly invented.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But he that doubteth (or, wavereth) is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For sense of diakrinesyai , cf. Rom_4:20 Mat_21:21 Mar_11:23 Jam_1:6. Faith here denotes an assured belief that what one does is right; nor is it necessary to give the word a wider or different sense in the concluding clause (Tauta de panta peri thv prokeimenhv upoyesewv eirhtai tw Paulw ou peri pantwn , Chrysostom). Hence to see in it (as has been done) the doctrine of the sinfulness of all works done apart from faith in Christ is to introduce an idea that is not there.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Because it is not of faith - He does not believe it lawful and, in all these cases, whatsoever is not of faith is sin - Whatever a man does without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, it is sin to him.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

damned condemned, i.e. as in Rom 14:22.

sin Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, "He that doubteth whether he should eat or no, and yet eats, is condemned of himself, because he doth a thing when he is not satisfied of its lawfulness; for whatsoever is not done of faith, that is, with a persuasion that it is lawful, is to him that does it undoubtedly sinful." Whatever a man does, believing it to be a sin, is certainly a sin in him.

Here observe, That an erring conscience binds us to do nothing against it. A scrupulous conscience is a troublesome one, but it is better than a presumptuous conscience. As we must not nourish our scruples and doubtings, so neither must we act against our scruples and doubts. In short, no man is to act contrary to his conscience; but then it is as much his duty to inform his conscience, as to follow his conscience. To act against conscience is a very great sin; but a man may act according to his conscience, and yet be a very great sinner. St. Paul, when he was a bloody persecutor, tells us he acted according to his conscience; I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Act 26:9

Pray we then for a conscience rightly informed by the word of God: and that we may so follow the dictates and directions of it whilst we live, that it may neither reprove nor reproach us when we come to die. Amen.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. “If any one may eat doubting, he has been condemned, because it is not of faith. For everything which is not of faith is sin.” “Damnation,” as in E. V., does not take place in this world. The same word means condemnation here and damnation in the world to come. You see from this scripture that faith must be stalwart and conscience clear in every case. We must make it a rule to take the self-denial side in every doubtful case, even at financial cost and inconvenience. God will give us clear light on all the ground we can cultivate, His Spirit leading your spirit, His Word your intellect and His providence your body, so if true you will never lack His guidance.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin . [The apostle here presents the contrast between the strong and the weak. The former is blest indeed in that he has liberty without the sense of inward disapproval, while the other, not sure of his ground, plunges recklessly on, and, acting contrary to his convictions, and hence to that respect and reverence which is due to God, sins. His eating is sinful because not of faith (faith is here used in the abstract sense, and means grounded, undoubting conviction that God approves), for whatever is done without such settled conviction is sinful recklessness, and must not be done at all, for to act contrary to the will of God is to destroy his work in us. Diakrenesthai, translated "doubteth," means to be divided into two persons, one of whom says "yes," and the other "no." In the case of the weak the flesh says "yes," and conscience cries "no."]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. He that doubteth is damned if he eat. He is contrasted with him “who has faith” (verse 22). He has not faith, or does not believe that it is right to eat these meats. Hence he is condemned (“damned”) by his own conscience. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. The context shows that Paul means that whenever actions are done by a Christian which he does not believe are right, he sins in doing them. If he is doubtful whether they are right, he must not do them.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

23. ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος κ.τ.λ. Cf. Jas 1:6, ‘he that hesitates or doubts,’ who wavers in his judgment; cf. Rom 4:20; Act 10:20.

κατακέριται is at once condemned by the act, not by the doubt.

οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ‘because the action does not spring from faith.’ It is not the result in him, as it is in the other, of faith: and action which cannot justify itself thus proceeds from some other motive, which necessarily makes it sinful. Faith here as throughout is the man’s faith in GOD through Christ. This faith settles for the man the principles and details of conduct. Only that conduct is right for him which springs properly from this faith. When a man’s faith either gives no answer to a question as to conduct or condemns a particular line, the conduct is sinful. Thus we are given here a practical rule for individual action: not a general principle of the value of works done outside the range of Christian profession and. knowledge. It has been constantly used for the latter purpose. Cf. S. H. “faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a good conscience.” It is important to observe the negative character of the phrase. It does not follow that everything which a man believes he may do is right; cf. Lid.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23.] but he that doubteth (the situation just described not being his), incurs condemnation if he eat (the case in point particularized), because (he eats) not from faith (i.e. as before,—see Chrys. above,—from a persuasion of rectitude grounded on and consonant with his life of faith. That ‘faith in the Son of God’ by which the Apostle describes his own life in the flesh as being lived (Gal 2:20), informing and penetrating the motives and the conscience, will not include, will not sanction, an act done against the testimony of the conscience): but (introducing an axiom, as Heb 8:13) all that is not from (grounded in, and therefore consonant with) faith (the great element in which the Christian lives and moves and desires and hopes), is sin. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, al., have taken this text as shewing that ‘omnis infidelium vita peccatum est.’ Whether that be the case or not, cannot be determined from this passage, any more than from Heb 11:6, because neither here nor there is the ‘infidelis’ in question. Here the Apostle has in view two Christians, both living by faith, and by faith doing acts pleasing to God: and he reminds them that whatever they do out of harmony with this great principle of their spiritual lives, belongs to the category of sin. In Heb_11 the Writer is speaking of one who had the testimony of having (eminently) pleased God: this, he says, he did by faith; for without faith it is impossible to please Him. The question touching the ‘infidelis,’ must be settled by another enquiry: Can he whom we thus name have faith,—such a faith as may enable him to do acts which are not sinful? a question impossible for us to solve.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος: see on 4:20. If a man doubts or hesitates and then eats, he is, by the very fact that he doubts, condemned for his weakness of faith. If his faith were strong he would have no doubt or hesitation.

πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως, ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. πίστις is subjective, the strong conviction of what is right and of the principles of salvation. ‘Weakly to comply with other persons’ customs without being convinced of their indifference is itself sin.’ This maxim (1) is not concerned with the usual conduct of unbelievers, (2) must not be extended to cases different in character from those St. Paul is considering. It is not a general maxim concerning faith.

This verse has had a very important part to play in controversy. How important may be seen from the use made of it in Augustine Contra Iulianum iv, one passage of which (§ 32) may be quoted: Ex quo colligitur, etiam ipsa bona opera quae faciunt infideles, non ipsorum esse, sed illius qui bene utitur malis. Ipsorum autem esse peccata quibus et bona male faciunt; quia ea non fideli, sed infideli, hoc est stulta et noxia faciunt voluntate: qualis voluntas, nullo Christiano dubitante, arbor est mala, quae facere non potest nisi fructus malos, id est, sola peccata. Omne enim, velis nolis, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est. Since this time it has been used to support the two propositions that works done before justification are sin and consequently that the heathen are unable to do good works. Into the merits of these controversies it will be apart from our purpose to enter. It is sufficient to notice that this verse is in such a context completely misquoted. As Chrysostom says, ‘When a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the object in hand, not of everything.’ The words do not apply to those who are not Christians, nor to the works of those who are Christians done before they became such, but to the conduct of believing Christians; and faith is used somewhat in the way we should speak of a ‘good conscience’; ‘everything which is not done with a clear conscience is sin.’ So Aquinas, Summa i. 2,qu. xix, art. v. omne quod non est ex fide peccatum est, id est, omne quod est contra conscientiam.

On the doxology (16:25-27), which in some MSS. finds a place here, see the Introduction, § 8.

Mey.-W. Meyer-Weisa.

Oltr. Oltramare.

Va. Vaughan.

Lips. Lipsius.

Gif. Gifford.

Bas. Basil.

Chrys. Chrysostom.

Sah. Sahidic.

Boh. Bohairic.

&c. always qualify the word which precedes, not that which follows:

Vulg. Vulgate.

Orig.-lat. Latin Version of Origen

Tisch. Tischendorf.

אԠCod. Sinaiticus

A Cod. Alexandrinus

C Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus

P Cod. Porphyrianus

Ambrstr. Ambrosiaster.

אԠCod. Sinaiticus, corrector c

B Cod. Vaticanus

D Cod. Claromontanus

E Cod. Sangermanensis

F Cod. Augiensis

G Cod. Boernerianus

Syrr. Syriac.

T. R. Textus Receptus.

RV. Revised Version.

WH. Westcott and Hort.

L Cod. Angelicus

Arm. Armenian.

Aeth. Ethiopic.

Orig. Origen.

Cypr. Cyprian.

Aug. Augustine.

Pesh. Peshitto.

Jos. Josephus.

בԠCod. Patiriensis

Latt. Latin.

אԠCod. Sinaiticus, corrector a

codd. codices.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Faith. In Christ. "So far as it brings with it the moral confidence as to what in general and under given circumstances is the right christian mode of action" (Meyer).

Some authorities insert here the doxology at ch. 16 25 - 27. According to some, the Epistle to the Rom. closed with this chapter. Chapter 16 was a list of disciples resident at different points on the route, who were to be greeted. Phoebe is first named because Cenchreae would be the first stage. Ephesus would be the next stage, where Aquila and Priscilla would be found. Chapter 15 was a sort of private missive to be communicated to all whom the messengers should visit on the way. The question seems to be almost wholly due to the mention of Aquila and Priscilla in ch. 16, and to the fact that there is no account of their migration from Ephesus to Rome, and of an after - migration again to Ephesus (2Ti 4:19). But see on ch. Rom 16:14.

Others claim that chs. 1 - 11, 16. were the original epistle; that Phoebe's journey was delayed, and that, in the interval, news from Rome led Paul to add 12 - 15.

Others again, that ch. 16 was written from Rome to Ephesus.

Against these theories is the stubborn fact that of the known extant MSS. of Paul (about three hundred) all the MSS. hitherto collated, including all the most important, give these chapters in the received connection and order, with the exception of the doxology. See on the doxology, ch. 16.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.