Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 14

After showing how one should become perfect, the Apostle now shows how the perfect should act toward the imperfect.

First, he shows that they should not cause them to stumble or judge them.

Second, that they should support them, as in the verse, we that are stronger (Romans 15:1).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

First, he forbids improper judgments.

Second, he forbids placing stumbling blocks before the weak, as in but judge this rather (Romans 14:13).

Regarding the first of these, he does three things:

First, he gives an admonition.

Second, he explains it, at for one believes.

Third, he assigns a reason, at for God has taken him to him.

In regard to the first point, it should be noted that in the early Church, some of the Jews who converted to Christ believed that the practices of the law must be observed along with the Gospel, as is clear from Acts (Acts 15:1). The Apostle calls these believers "weak" in the faith of Christ, as though not yet perfectly believing that faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation. He calls those "perfect" or "strong" in faith who believed that the faith of Christ was to be observed without the practices of the law. There were some of both types among the believers in Rome.

Therefore, the Apostle addresses the perfect in faith, saying: We have said that you should put on the Lord Jesus Christ; take unto you, that is, join to yourselves in a spirit of charity and support, the man who is weak in faith. To this person can be applied the words of Wisdom: I am a man who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws . He also says, welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you (Romans 15:7); and, help a poor man for the commandment’s sake . But do so, not for disputes of opinions, that is, not for arguing about how one person’s opinion is contrary to another’s. For those who observed the practices of the law considered those who did not observe them to be violators, and those who did not observe them despised those who did as mistaken and ignorant: their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Romans 2:15).

Then when he says, for one believes, he explains what he had said.

First, he shows who are weak in faith.

Second, he shows how disputes over opinions are to be avoided, at let him who eats.

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that one of the observances of the law dealt with distinguishing among foods, because some foods were forbidden in the law, as is clear from Leviticus 11:2 and following. Indeed, it was necessary every day to either apply this observance or not. Therefore, the Apostle mentions this in particular, saying: for one believes, namely, the one perfect in faith, that he may eat all things, since he does not consider himself bound to the observance of the law: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man (Matthew 15:11); everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4).

It was not because they were naturally unclean that certain foods were forbidden in the old law. For just as in the case of words, the word "fool" signifies something not good, although the word itself is good, so in the case of animals, some are good according to their nature but evil in what they signify, like a pig, which signifies uncleanness. Therefore, the ancients were forbidden to eat its flesh, for in avoiding it they signified an avoidance of uncleanness. The entire life of that earlier people was centered on such figures. But with the coming of Christ, who is the truth, the figures ceased.

He adds in regard to the weak: but he who is weak, let him eat herbs. This is as if to say: he eats those foods which involve nothing unclean that is forbidden in the law. For among the classes of animals—of the land, sky, and water—some classes were permitted and some were forbidden; but no herbs or trees were forbidden, as is clear in Leviticus (Leviticus 11).

There can be two reasons for this. One is that the produce of the earth had been granted to humanity to eat from the beginning: behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food (Genesis 1:29). But the first permission to eat flesh seems to have been granted after the flood. Hence it says in Genesis: as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything (Genesis 9:3), that is, all types of animals.

The other reason is that in Paradise, humanity had transgressed the first prohibition about abstaining from certain fruits of the earth, as is clear in Genesis 3; for this reason, a similar prohibition was not repeated.

But since the practices of the law ceased during the passion of Christ, it seems out of place for the Apostle to permit those weak in faith to abstain from foods forbidden in the law, a practice no longer granted to Christians by the Church.

According to Augustine, however, three periods of time regarding the practices of the law must be distinguished. The first is the time before Christ, when the practices of the law were in full effect and still alive.

The second is the time after the passion of Christ but before the spreading of the Gospel. During this period, the practices were dead, because no one was bound by them, and practicing them offered no benefit. Although dead, they were not yet deadly, because Jews who converted to Christ could practice them without sin. This is the time to which the Apostle refers here.

The third is the time after the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices of the law were not only dead but deadly, so that whoever practiced them sinned mortally.

The Gloss explains this in another way: the weak person is one who is prone to fall into sensual vices. Such a person should be advised to eat vegetables—that is, mild and meager foods which do not stir up vices—and to abstain from foods which stimulate sensual desire. But a stronger person believes that he can eat anything without danger. This difference appears between Christ’s disciples, who did not fast because they were strengthened by Christ’s presence, and the disciples of John the Baptist, who fasted. For this reason, too, those who perform penances abstain from certain foods, not because they are unclean, but in order to restrain sensual desire.

Then when he says, let him who eats, he explains how to avoid differences of opinion.

First, in regard to the perfect he says: let him who eats, namely, with a secure conscience or even without danger of sensual desire, despise not him who eats not from certain foods, viewing him as weak in faith or prone to sensual vices: woe to you, despiser, will you not be despised in turn? (Isaiah 33:1); he who rejects you rejects me (Luke 10:16).

Second, in regard to the weak, he says: and he who eats not from certain foods, either because he is weak in faith (about which the Apostle is speaking) or because he is prone to sensual desire, let him not judge him who eats as though he were a transgressor of the law or as rushing headlong into sensual vices: judge not that you may not be judged (Matthew 7:1); you have no excuse, O man, when you judge another (Romans 2:1).

Then when he says, for God has taken him to him, he assigns three reasons why we should abstain from false judgment.

The second is given at his master.

The third is given at you who judge.

The first reason is based on the authority of the one judging. Hence:

First, he shows that this authority belongs to God.

Second, he concludes that judgment does not belong to human beings, at who are you.

First, therefore, he says: I was correct in saying that one who eats should not judge one who does not, for God has taken him to him, namely, as a servant to be judged by Him: I took two rods, that is, two peoples (Zechariah 11:7); he drew me out of many waters (Psalms 18:16).

But one who is drawn to the judgment of a superior should not be judged by an inferior.

Therefore, he concludes, who are you, that is, of what authority and power are you, who judges another man’s servant? That is, your neighbor, who is a servant of God? For a judge must have authority, as it says in Exodus: who made you a prince and a judge over us? (Exodus 2:14). And in Luke: Man, who made me a judge or divider over you? (Luke 12:14).

But from this reasoning, it seems to follow that any judgment a person makes about another is unlawful.

The answer is that a person’s judgment is lawful, as long as he acts with divinely granted authority. Hence, it says in Deuteronomy: hear them and judge what is righteous (Deuteronomy 1:16), and later he adds, judgment is God’s, that is, it is passed with God’s authority. But if someone desires to usurp judgment over matters not divinely granted for him to judge, the judgment is rash, just as if a judge delegated by the Pope wished to go beyond the limits of his mandate. God has reserved for Himself the judging of hidden things, which are mainly the thoughts of the heart and the future. Therefore, if anyone presumed to judge these matters, the judgment would be rash. Hence Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: "A judgment is rash in these two cases: when there is uncertainty about the intention with which something was done, or uncertainty about the future of one who now seems to be good or evil."

Then when he says: to his own lord he stands or falls, he presents the second reason, which is taken from the outcome of merit or demerit.

For one could say that although a person has no authority to judge, he should involve himself in judging another on account of the harm or benefit that comes from it. But the Apostle says here that this pertains to God rather than to man. And so, for this reason as well, we should leave judgments about our neighbor to God, unless we are acting in His place by judging with authority committed to us.

In regard to this he does three things:

First, he states his proposition.

Second, he gives an example, at for one judges between day and day.

Third, he proves the proposition, at he that regards the day.

Regarding the first point, he does two things. First, he proposes that whatever happens to a person pertains to God when he says: to his own lord he stands, that is, by doing right: our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem (Psalms 122:2), or falls, that is, by sinning: fallen, no more to rise is the virgin Israel (Amos 5:1).

He presents it as a disjunction, stands or falls, on account of the uncertainty, for many seem to fall who stand, and vice versa, as it says in Ecclesiastes: then I saw the wicked buried; they used to go in and out of the holy place and were praised in the city, where they had done such things (Ecclesiastes 8:10). But the Apostle is speaking here in terms of a likeness to a human servant, to whose master pertains everything done in regard to him.

Nor should we suppose that God is harmed or benefited if a person stands or falls. For it says in Job: if you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him? If you are righteous, what do you give him? (Job 35:6). But in relation to other people, acts of justice look to God’s glory: that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven (Matthew 5:16). The fact that we fall by sinning is, for others, an occasion for blaspheming God: the name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles (Romans 2:24).

Alternatively, the words to his own lord he stands or falls should be explained as referring to the judgment of his master: the one who judges me is the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:4).

Second, he shows that it pertains to God to judge a person, saying, and he will be upheld. As if to say: even though someone now falls by sinning, it is possible that he will stand again. And this will certainly happen if he has been predestined: will he not rise again from where he lies? (Psalms 41:8); rejoice not over me, O my enemy, when I fall, I shall rise (Micah 7:8).

For this reason, if we see someone obviously sinning, we should not despise him and rashly judge that he will never rise again. Rather, we should presume that he will stand again, not considering the human condition but God’s power. Hence, when he says, for God is able to make him stand, we should presume that God will make him stand again on account of His goodness: the Spirit entered into me and set me upon my feet (Ezekiel 3:24). This is just as Paul said earlier: and even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again (Romans 11:23).

Then when he says, for one judges, he exemplifies what he had said. First, he proposes that human opinions vary, saying: I say that to his own lord he stands or falls... for one judges between day and day, that is, he judges between one day and another, so that he abstains on one day and not on another. This seems to refer to those weak in faith, who suppose that the practices of the law must still be observed. For it says in Leviticus: on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; and you shall afflict yourselves on this day (Leviticus 23:27). And in Judith it is stated that Judith fasted all the days of her life, except on Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts of the house of Israel .

And another judges every day alike as far as observing the practices of the law, because these had now ceased. Hence this seems to refer to the perfect in faith: bless his name from day to day (Psalms 96:2).

This can also refer to cases of abstaining performed to control sensual desires. Some abstain in this manner every day; for example, those who always abstain from meat or wine or who fast, although some abstain on certain days and not on others: for everything there is a season (Ecclesiastes 3:1).

Second, he shows that all these things can pertain to the glory of God, saying: let every man abound in his own sense, that is, be left to his own judgment: God made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his own counsel . Or, in his own sense, that is, according to his own mind let him be zealous to abound for the glory of God, according to 1 Corinthians: seek to abound for the edifying of the Church (1 Corinthians 14:12).

But this seems to apply to things that are not in themselves evil. In things that are evil in themselves, however, a person must not be left to follow his own mind. But that a person discriminates between days seems to be evil in itself according to the first explanation. For it says in Galatians: you observe days and months and seasons and years! I fear that I have labored over you in vain (Galatians 4:10). And he is speaking there about those who claimed that days must be observed according to the ceremonies of the law.

The answer is that the Apostle is speaking here in regard to that time in which it was lawful for Jews converted to the faith to observe the practices of the law. But in regard to the second explanation, it seems to be unlawful for him to say: and another judges every day. For there are some days on which it is unlawful to fast. For Augustine says in his Letter to Casulanus: "Whoever thinks that a fast should be decreed on the Lord’s day would be a great scandal to the Church, and rightfully so. For on those days about which the Church or Sacred Scripture has decreed nothing definite, the customs of the people of God and the decrees of the major authorities must be considered the law." And in the Decretals it is written (Decretal 30): "If on account of a public penance received from a priest, a presbyter were to fast without any other need on the Lord’s day, let him be anathema."

But one should understand that the Apostle is speaking here about those abstinences that can be lawfully undertaken on any day without clashing with the common custom, or with the customs established by those in authority.

Then when he says, he who regards the day, he proves his proposition, namely, that each one stands or falls before his own master. And he does this in three ways.

First, he proves it by appealing to the actions of believers.

Second, by their intention, at for none of us lives.

Third, by their condition, at for whether we live, or whether we die.

First, therefore, he proves how each of the faithful stands or falls before his master, because in everything he does according to his conscience, he gives thanks to God. Hence he says: he who regards the day by abstaining one day and not on another, regards it unto the Lord, that is, he discriminates between foods out of reverence for God, just as we ourselves distinguish between the vigils of feasts when we fast, and the feast days when we break the fast out of reverence for God: why is any day better than another and light better than light .

Then he speaks with respect to those who esteem all days alike. Some of these ceased from fasting every day, as Matthew says that Christ’s disciples did not fast (Matthew 9:14). Hence he says: and he who eats, namely, every day, eats in honor of the Lord, that is, to the glory of God. This is proved by the fact that he gives thanks to God for the food he eats: some enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:3); the poor shall eat and be filled (Psalms 22:26).

Finally, in regard to those who look on days in such a way that they abstain every day, he says: and he who eats not, that is, abstains every day, to the Lord, that is, for the honor of the Lord, he eats not. This is clear, because he gives thanks to God, who gave him the will and strength to abstain: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

But what the Apostle says here about those who abstain every day or cease abstaining should be understood with respect to that time when this was not contrary to the decrees of major authorities or to the common customs of the people of God.

Then when he says, for none of us lives to himself, he proves the same thing from the intention of believers.

First, he rejects an improper intention, saying: I am correct in saying that everyone stands or falls before his master, for none of us lives to himself, in his natural or in his supernatural life, about which it says in Hebrews: my just man lives by faith (Hebrews 2:4). To himself, that is, for himself, because that would be to enjoy himself: not seeking what is useful for me (1 Corinthians 10:33); not to us, O Lord, not to us give the glory (Psalms 114:9). Or to himself, that is, according to his own rule, like those who say: let our might be our law of right . Or to himself, that is, according to his own judgment: I do not even judge myself (1 Corinthians 4:3).

And none dies to himself, namely, a bodily death or a spiritual death by sinning, or even a spiritual death wherein one dies to his vices, as in baptism, as it says above: he who has died is freed from sin (Romans 6:7). One does not die to himself, that is, to his own judgment or on account of himself or as his own example. Rather, someone dies to vices following the example of Christ: the death he died to sin, he died once (Romans 6:10); and later: so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11).

Second, he describes the right intention of believers, saying: if we live with our bodily life, we live unto the Lord, that is, for the glory of the Lord; and if we die a bodily death, we die unto the Lord, that is, for the honor of the Lord: Christ will be magnified in my body whether through death or through life (Philippians 1:20).

Alternatively, if it is understood that he says we live and we die in reference to a spiritual life and death, it ought to be explained that he says unto the Lord to mean "in the judgment of the Lord," who was appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42).

Then when he says, therefore, whether we live, he clarifies his proposition by considering the condition of believers.

First, he concludes from the previous points the condition of the faithful: namely, that they are not their own but belong to another. For those who are their own are free; they live for themselves and die for themselves.

Therefore, because it has been stated that the faithful do not live or die for themselves but for the Lord, he concludes: therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s, as servants of Him who has power over life and death: you were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men (1 Corinthians 7:23); you were bought with a great price (1 Corinthians 6:20); we are yours, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse! (1 Chronicles 12:18).

Second, he assigns the cause of this condition, saying: for to this end Christ died and rose again, that is, by his death and resurrection he obtained the right to be Lord of the living, because he rose to begin a new and perpetual life, and of the dead, because by dying he destroyed our death: he died for all that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and arose (2 Corinthians 5:15).

Thus, by all the previous points, the Apostle has proved that each one stands or falls before his master, namely, by the fact that believers give thanks to God, that they live and die for the Lord, and that in life and in death we are the Lord’s.

Then when he says, but you, why do you judge, he presents the third reason, which is based on the future judgment.

In regard to this he does three things. First, he suggests that a judgment at present is unnecessary, saying: but you, why do you judge, that is, of what use or need is your judgment of your brother, rashly judging hidden matters not committed to your judgment? Or you, who are judged, why do you despise your brother, regarding as nothing the fact that you are judged by him? Why does each one despise his brother? (Micah 2:10).

Second, he foretells the future judgment of Christ. As if to say: I am correct in asking why you pass judgment, because you should not fear that anyone will remain unjudged. For we shall all stand before the tribunal of Christ. The tribunal of Christ is so called on account of his judicial power, as it says in Matthew: when the Son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the glorious throne (Matthew 25:31).

He says that we shall all stand, as if to be judged, both good and evil in regard to reward or punishment: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10).

But as to the proceedings, not all will stand to be judged, but some will sit as judges: you will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28).

Third, when he says, for it is written, he proves what he had said.

First, he appeals to an authority.

Second, he draws the conclusion, at therefore every one of us.

First, therefore, he says: I have stated that all of us will stand before the tribunal of Christ. This is clear from the testimony of Sacred Scripture: for it is written: as I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God (Isaiah 45:23).

Our text has this: I have sworn by myself that to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear.

Three things are stated in these words. First is the oath sometimes used by God to show that what is said is as solid as the unchangeableness of God’s plan and not changeable like things foretold according to lower causes, such as threatening prophecies. Hence it says in a psalm: the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind (Psalms 110:4). But human beings, as the Apostle says in Hebrews, swear by someone greater than themselves (Hebrews 6:16). But because God has no one greater than Himself on which the strength of His truth depends, He swears by Himself.

Furthermore, God is life itself and the source of life, as it says in Deuteronomy: he is your life and the length of your days (Deuteronomy 30:20); and with you is the fountain of life (Psalms 36:9). Therefore, the formula of the Lord’s oath is, as I live. As if to say: I swear by the life that I uniquely live.

Second, the coming subjection of the creature to God is foretold, when it is said: every knee shall bow to me, that is, to Christ. This designates the complete subjection of the rational creature to Christ, for people are accustomed to signify subjection by bending the knee. Hence it says in Philippians: at the name of Jesus every knee shall bend in heaven and on the earth and under the earth (Philippians 2:10).

Third, he foretells the confession of faith by which all will confess the glory of Christ. Hence he continues: and every tongue shall confess to God, that is, will confess that Christ is God, as it says in Philippians: every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11).

Every tongue can be understood as the expression of the knowledge of humans or of angels, as it says in 1 Corinthians: if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1).

This is fulfilled now in this life, not for every individual but for every class of person. From each class of people, some are not subjected to Christ and do not confess him by faith, but in the future judgment all individuals will be subjected to him: the good voluntarily and the evil unwillingly. Hence, it says in Hebrews: now in subjecting everything to him, he left nothing outside his control (Hebrews 2:8).

Then when he says, therefore every one of us, he draws the conclusion from the previous points.

First, he draws the conclusion intended from what he had just said, stating: therefore, from the fact that every knee will bend before Christ, every one of us shall render an account to God for himself, that is, before the tribunal of Christ: on the day of judgment every man shall render an account for every careless word he uttered (Matthew 12:36); the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants (Matthew 18:23).

But it seems that not everyone will give an account of himself, but one for someone else: obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account (Hebrews 13:17).

The answer is that in the very fact that church leaders will render an account for others, they will render an account for their own actions, which they should have performed for their subjects. For if they have done what their duties demanded, they will not be held accountable if their subjects perished. But they would be held accountable if they neglected to do what their office required. Hence it says in Ezekiel: if I say to the wicked, ‘you shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I shall require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness, he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life (Ezekiel 3:18 and following).

Second, he draws the conclusion chiefly intended from the entire preceding part, saying: let us not therefore judge one another any more, that is, with a rash judgment, which is addressed in the reason given above: do not pronounce judgment before the time (1 Corinthians 4:5).

After forbidding human judgments, the Apostle now forbids putting stumbling blocks before one’s neighbor.

He structures his argument in two parts:

1. He presents his proposition.
2. He clarifies it, beginning with the phrase for if, because of food.

In regard to the first part, he does three things.

First, he teaches that stumbling blocks must be avoided, saying: I have said that you should not judge one another, but everyone ought to judge their own actions, so that they do not become a scandal to others. This is what he says: but judge this rather, that you do not put a stumbling block or a scandal in your brother’s way. A scandal, as Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew, means a hindrance or injury which we can call a ‘striking of the foot.’ Hence, a scandal is a wrongful word or deed that presents an occasion for someone's ruin, like a stone against which one strikes his foot and falls.

A scandal is more serious than a hindrance, for a hindrance can be anything that merely slows forward movement. A scandal, however—that is, a striking—seems to exist when someone is set up for a fall. Therefore, we should not place a hindrance before our brother by doing anything that will draw him from the path of justice: take the hindrance out of my people’s path (Isaiah 57:14). Nor should we place a scandal before a brother by doing something that might incline him to sin: woe to the man by whom scandal comes (Matthew 18:7).

Second, he teaches that what was considered a stumbling block was, by its very nature and in itself, lawful.

In this regard, it should be noted that, as was stated above, there were among the Romans some Jews converted to Christ who distinguished between foods according to the Law. Others, however, having a perfect faith, used all foods without distinction, which in itself was lawful. Hence he says: I know and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common of itself.

On this point, it should be known, as Jerome says in his Commentary on Matthew, that the Jewish people, boasting that they are God’s portion, call the food that all other people use "unclean"—for example, the flesh of swine, hares, and similar foods. Furthermore, the nations that used such foods were not God’s portion; consequently, such food was considered unclean.

The words nothing is common mean the same thing as saying "nothing is unclean."

The Apostle says that nothing is unclean because he knows that it is so according to the nature of things, as he says in 1 Timothy: everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Timothy 4:4). Second, he says that he is persuaded in Christ Jesus that in itself nothing is unclean. This is because foods by their very nature were never unclean, but were avoided for a time as unclean in keeping with a commandment of the Law, which served as a figure. Christ removed this by fulfilling all such figures. Therefore, the Apostle, relying on his confidence in the Lord Jesus, asserts that nothing is common or unclean of itself: what God has cleansed, you must not call common (Acts 10:15).

Third, he shows how this could be unlawful accidentally, because it is against the conscience of the eater. Hence he says: It has been stated that nothing is common; but it must be understood that if one has an erroneous conscience and thinks that some food is unclean, then for him it is common. Thus, it is unlawful for him, as if the food were really unclean: to the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15).

So it is clear that something lawful in itself becomes unlawful for one who does it against his conscience, even though his conscience is erroneous. It is reasonable that this is so, for acts are judged according to the will of the performer. The will, however, is moved by what the mind perceives. Hence, the will tends toward what the mind represents to it, and the action is qualified or specified according to this representation.

Therefore, if a person’s reason judges that something is sinful and the will is drawn to do it, it is clear that the person has a will to commit a sin. For this reason, his external action, which proceeds from the will, is a sin. By the same logic, if someone thinks that something venially sinful is a mortal sin and does it while his conscience is in that state, it is clear that he has chosen to sin mortally. Consequently, his action is a mortal sin on account of his choice.

But if, after the fact, someone has an erroneous conscience through which he believes that something lawful he did was a sin, or something venial was mortal, it is not on that account a sin or a mortal sin. This is because the will and the action are not shaped by a later perception but by the one that preceded the will and the action.

There is no doubt about what we have said, but a question can arise: what if someone has an erroneous conscience by which he believes that something which is a mortal sin is necessary for salvation? For example, if he thinks that he is sinning mortally unless he steals or fornicates, does such a conscience bind him, so that if he acted against it, he would sin mortally?

It would seem that he would not be bound. First, because God’s law, which forbids stealing and fornication, binds him more strongly than conscience. Second, because this position would put him in a state of perplexity, for he would sin by fornicating and by not fornicating.

The answer is that an erroneous conscience binds, even in matters evil in themselves. For conscience, as has been said, binds to such an extent that from the fact that one acts against his conscience, it follows that he has the will to sin. Therefore, if someone believes that not to fornicate is a sin and chooses not to fornicate, he chooses to sin mortally, and so he sins mortally.

This also applies to what the Apostle says here. For it is clear that distinguishing among foods as though necessary for salvation was unlawful. Even before the spreading of the Gospel, it was not lawful for converted Jews to observe the practices of the Law by putting their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation, as Augustine said above. Yet the Apostle says here that if a person’s conscience compels him to regard some food as unclean, and he eats it anyway, he sins as though he were eating unclean food. And so an erroneous conscience obliges, even in matters that are unlawful in themselves.

The answer to the first objection about the law of God is that the binding force of an erroneous conscience and that of the law of God are the same. For conscience does not dictate something to be done or avoided unless it believes that it is against or in accordance with the law of God. The law is applied to our actions only by means of our conscience.

The answer to the second objection is that nothing forbids a person from being perplexed in certain circumstances, although no one is perplexed absolutely. For example, a fornicating priest sins mortally whether he celebrates Mass or does not celebrate, when he is obliged by his office. Yet absolutely speaking, he is not perplexed, because he can confess and then celebrate. Similarly, someone can get rid of an erroneous conscience and abstain from sin.

There is still another difficulty. One is not said to place a stumbling block by doing a good work, even though someone takes that good work as a stumbling block, as Matthew says that the Pharisees took the words of Jesus as a stumbling block (Matthew 15:12). But not discriminating among foods is a good work; therefore, it should not be avoided just because someone with an erroneous conscience makes a stumbling block of it. According to this reasoning, Catholics would have to abstain from meat and marriage to prevent heretics from being offended according to their erroneous conscience.

The answer is that someone can place a stumbling block before another not only by doing something evil but also by doing something that has the appearance of evil: abstain from all appearances of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22). Now, something is said to have the appearance of evil in two ways: first, according to the opinion of those cut off from the Church; second, according to the opinion of those still tolerated by the Church. Those weak in faith, who considered that the practices of the Law should be observed, were still tolerated by the Church before the spread of the Gospel. Therefore, foods forbidden by the Law were not to be eaten if they were a stumbling block. Heretics, however, are not tolerated by the Church; therefore, this reasoning does not apply to them.

Then, when he says, for if, because of food, he clarifies what he had said:

1. That scandals must not be placed before a brother.
2. How something is "common," beginning with the phrase all things indeed are clean.

In regard to the first point, he presents four arguments. The first is based on charity, saying: for if your brother is grieved by the fact that he thinks you are sinning because of food which you eat, which he considers unclean, you no longer walk according to charity, according to which a person loves his neighbor as himself. So you should avoid saddening him and not prefer food to your brother’s peace of mind: love does not seek its own (1 Corinthians 13:5).

Then, when he says, destroy not him with your food, he presents the second argument, based on Christ’s death.

For he who voids the fruit of Christ's death for the sake of food seems to place little value on it. Hence he says: with your food, of which you eat without distinction, destroy not him—that is, do not be a stumbling block—for whom, that is, for whose salvation, Christ died: Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust (1 Peter 3:18).

He says that the victim of the stumbling block suffers ruin because it involves him in sin. For the victim is one who makes a stumbling block the occasion of ruin: so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died (1 Corinthians 8:11).

Then, when he says, let not then, he presents the third reason, which is based on the gifts of spiritual grace.

1. He shows what impropriety follows against such gifts from the fact that we place a stumbling block.
2. He clarifies what he had said, beginning with for the kingdom of God.
3. He draws a conclusion, beginning with therefore, let us follow after the things that are of peace.

In regard to the first point, it should be noted that because some in the early Church ate all foods without distinction and thus set an obstacle before the weak, this impropriety followed: the weak blasphemed the faith of Christ, asserting that it fostered greediness for food, contrary to the commandment of the Law. Therefore, the Apostle says: Although the Lord Jesus declared that nothing is unclean, do not let our good—that is, the faith and grace of Christ, through which you have obtained freedom from the ceremonies of the Law—be spoken of as evil by the weak who declare that it caters to human gluttony: they blaspheme that honorable name by which you are called (James 2:7). Concerning this good, it says in a psalm: for me it is good to be near God (Psalms 73:28).

Then, when he says, for the kingdom, he explains what he had said, namely, in what our good consists.

First, he shows in what it does not consist, saying: for the kingdom of God is not food and drink. Here, the kingdom of God means that through which God reigns in us and through which we arrive at His kingdom. Matthew says of this: your kingdom come (Matthew 6:10), and Micah: the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion (Micah 4:7).

We are joined to God and subjected to Him through our intellect and affections, as it says in John: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24). This is why the kingdom of God is considered to be mainly in things interior to a person, not exterior. Hence Luke says: the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21).

But things that are exterior and pertain to the body relate to the kingdom of God to the extent that through them our interior affections are ordered or disordered in regard to those things in which the kingdom of God mainly consists. Hence, since food and drink pertain to the body, they do not of themselves pertain to the kingdom of God, but only insofar as we use them or abstain from them. As it says in 1 Corinthians: food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do (1 Corinthians 8:8).

Yet the use of or abstinence from food and drink pertains to the kingdom of God, insofar as a person’s affections are ordered or disordered in regard to them. Hence Augustine says in Questions on the Gospel, and it is provided here in the Gloss: wisdom is justified in her children who understand that justice does not consist in eating or in abstaining, but in tolerating need with equanimity and in temperance not destroying itself by abundance and by unsuitable ways of eating. It makes no difference, as is said in the Gloss, how, what, or how much one takes, as long as he does it according to the habits of the men among whom he lives and for the needs of his person and health; but with how much power and severity of mind he endures the lack of these, either when he should or of necessity must be deprived of them.

Second, he shows in what our good consists, namely, in the kingdom of God, saying: justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Here, justice refers to external works, by which a person gives to each what is due, and the intention of doing such works, as it says in Matthew: seek first the kingdom of God and his justice (Matthew 6:33). Peace refers to the effect of justice, for peace is particularly disturbed when one person does not give to another what he owes him. Hence it says in Isaiah: peace is a work of justice (Isaiah 32:17).

Joy must be referred to the manner in which the works of justice are to be accomplished. For as the Philosopher says in book one of the Ethics, a man is not just who does not take joy in acts of justice. Hence a psalm says: serve the Lord with gladness (Psalms 100:2).

The cause of this joy is expressed when he says: in the Holy Spirit. For it is by the Holy Spirit that the love of God is poured into us, as was said above (Romans 5:5). Joy in the Holy Spirit is what charity produces; for example, when one rejoices in the good of God and neighbor. Hence it says in 1 Corinthians: charity does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right (1 Corinthians 13:6), and in Galatians: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace (Galatians 5:22).

The three things mentioned here are possessed imperfectly in this life, but perfectly when the saints will possess the kingdom God prepared for them, as it says in Matthew (Matthew 25:34). In that kingdom, perfect justice will exist without any sin: all your people are righteous (Isaiah 60:21). There will be perfect peace without any disquiet or fear: my people will abide in a peaceful habitation (Isaiah 32:18). There will be joy there: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away (Isaiah 35:10).

Then he proves what he had said, namely, that the kingdom of God consists in these things. For the person who seems to belong to the kingdom of God is one who is pleasing to God and approved by holy people. But this happens to the person in whom are found justice, peace, and joy. Therefore, the kingdom of God consists in them. He says, therefore: It has been stated that the kingdom of God is justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit; for he who in this serves Christ, who is the king of this kingdom—he has transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son (Colossians 1:13)—so that one who lives in justice, joy, and peace pleases God, who is the founder of this kingdom—there was one who pleased God and was loved by him ()—and is approved by men, that is, approved by the members of this kingdom: who has been tested by it and found perfect .

Then, when he says, therefore, he infers the intended admonition. Since the kingdom of God consists in justice, peace, and spiritual joy, therefore, in order to arrive at the kingdom of God, let us follow after the path of peace, that is, strive to accomplish the things through which we preserve the peace of Christians: strive for peace and holiness (Hebrews 12:14). Let us keep the things that are of edification, one towards another, that is, things by which we build one another up, by which we preserve what is good and are stimulated to become better: strive to excel in building up the Church (1 Corinthians 14:12). This indeed will happen if we have lived in justice and spiritual joy.

Then, when he says, destroy not the work of God for food, he presents the fourth argument, which is taken from our reverence for God’s works. We owe these works such reverence that we should not destroy what God does for some bodily convenience. This is what he says: for food, which is used by the body, destroy not the work of God.

This, of course, does not mean just any work of God. For all the things that serve as human food are God’s works, such as the produce of the earth and the flesh of animals, which have been granted to humanity for food, as it says in Genesis (Genesis 1:29; Genesis 9:3). It means the work of grace which He works in us in a special way: God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). Therefore, we should not, for the sake of food, destroy this work of God in our neighbor, as they seemed to do who disturbed and placed stumbling blocks before the brethren by eating all foods without distinction.

After presenting a reason to show that we should not set a stumbling block before our neighbor by eating all foods indiscriminately, the Apostle now shows how certain foods can be clean and unclean. In regard to this, he does two things.

First, he states which things are clean by their very nature, saying, all things indeed... are clean. This means that by its nature, food does not have the power to defile a person’s soul, as it says in Matthew: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man (Matthew 15:11); and in 1 Timothy: everything created by God is good (1 Timothy 4:4). However, certain things were declared unclean under the law not because of their nature, but because of what they signified, as is clear in Leviticus 11:2 and following. But Christ removed even this uncleanness by fulfilling the figures of the old law. Therefore, it was said to Peter: what God has cleansed, you must not call common, that is, unclean (Acts 10:15).

Second, when he says, but it is evil for that man, he shows how some food can become unclean for a person, namely, by staining his soul when he eats it. This happens in two ways:

First, when a person, by eating all food indiscriminately, puts a stumbling block before his neighbor.

Second, when he eats food contrary to his conscience, which is addressed at the verse, blessed is he who does not condemn himself.

Regarding the first point, he does three things. First, he shows what is evil in taking food, saying that although all things are by their nature clean, it is evil for that man who eats a certain food with offense—that is, causing confusion and scandal to his neighbor. As the Lord says, Woe to the world for stumbling blocks! (Matthew 18:7).

Second, he shows what is good regarding these kinds of foods, saying, it is good not to eat meat and not to drink wine. The first of these seems to be the principal food and the second the principal drink.

He says that it is good to abstain from these either to tame the desires of the flesh, as it says in Ephesians: do not get drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery (Ephesians 5:18), or even to make a person more suited for contemplating spiritual things: I have thought to deprive myself of wine, that I might give my mind to wisdom (Ecclesiastes 2:3).

However, this is not what the Apostle intends here. Instead, he means that it is good not to use these things if they are a stumbling block to the brethren. This is apparent from what he adds: nor anything by which your brother is offended. What I am saying applies not only to wine and meat—that it is good not to use them—but I say it of any other food. When he says your brother is offended, he means disturbed about you, as if you were acting unlawfully. By this, his peace is disturbed. When he says or scandalized, he means tempted to fall into sin; therefore, his righteousness is injured. When he says or made weak, he means he begins at least to wonder whether what is done is lawful, so that his spiritual joy is lessened. Therefore, the Apostle says: if meat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13).

Since it is lawful to use these foods, if one must abstain from them for fear of causing a stumbling block for a neighbor, then by the same reasoning it seems one should abstain from all lawful things that are not necessary for salvation—unlike righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, which are necessary. Thus, it would seem unlawful for a person to demand what is due to him for fear of causing a stumbling block.

The answer is that if the stumbling block comes from the weakness or ignorance of those who are scandalized by it, then to avoid this scandal, a person should abstain from lawful things, provided they are not necessary for salvation. This is the "scandal of the little ones," which the Lord commands us to avoid: see that you do not despise one of these little ones (Matthew 18:10). But if this kind of scandal arises from the malice of those who are scandalized, it is a "Pharisaical scandal," and the Lord taught that it should be ignored. Therefore, to avoid this kind of scandal, it is not necessary to abstain from lawful things.

However, regarding the scandal of the little ones, it should be noted that to avoid it, a person is obligated to postpone the use of lawful things until the scandal can be removed by explaining his conduct. But if the scandal remains even after such an explanation, it would then seem to proceed not from ignorance or weakness but from malice, at which point it becomes a Pharisaical scandal.

Third, he rejects a potential excuse. Someone might say, "Although my neighbor may be scandalized by my eating all foods indiscriminately, I will still do so in order to profess my faith, which tells me that it is lawful."

But the Apostle rejects this reasoning, saying: Do you have faith? This is addressed to the one who would use all foods indiscriminately, and it is through this faith that it is clear it is lawful to use these foods. This faith is good and praiseworthy. Have it to yourself before God, whom such faith pleases: God is well pleased with faith and meekness . It is as if he is saying: It is not fitting to display your faith through an outward action when it becomes a stumbling block to your neighbor.

However, this seems to be contradicted by what he said earlier: man believes with his heart and so is justified; and he confesses with his mouth and so is saved (Romans 10:10). Therefore, it does not seem to be enough to keep the faith in your heart between yourself and God; rather, it should be manifested by confessing it before your neighbor.

The answer is that some matters of faith have not been fully clarified by the Church. For example, in the early Church it had not been fully declared that Jewish converts were not bound to observe the practices of the law. Likewise, in the time of Augustine, the Church had not yet declared that the soul was not transferred from the parent. Therefore, in cases like these, it is enough for a person to keep his faith between himself and God. He should not display his faith if it scandalizes his neighbor, except perhaps among those who are responsible for deciding matters of faith.

However, other matters of faith have already been determined by the Church. In such matters, it is not enough to keep one’s faith between oneself and God. Instead, one must confess it before his neighbor, no matter what scandal might arise, because doctrinal truth must not be set aside on account of scandal, just as Christ did not set aside the truth of His teaching simply because the Pharisees were scandalized, as it says in Matthew 15:12 and following.

It should also be noted that although a person must manifest his faith in such matters by oral confession, he is not required to manifest it by performing an outward action. Thus, if someone holds by faith that the use of marriage is lawful, he is not required to use it as a manifestation of his faith. And so it is also not required of those who have correct faith that they manifest it by the use of foods, for they could manifest it by their words instead.

Then, when he says, blessed is he who does not condemn himself, he shows how the use of foods becomes unclean for certain people when it is against their conscience.

Regarding this, he does three things. First, he shows what is good in this matter: namely, that a person should not have remorse of conscience over something he approves. Therefore, he says, blessed is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. This means his conscience neither chides nor condemns him for what he allows himself to do.

This, of course, assumes that he approves what is to be done with right faith. But if he uses a false opinion in approving an action—for example, if he considers it a service to God to kill Christ’s disciples, as it says in John 16:2—he is not excused simply because his conscience does not judge him in this matter. Indeed, he would be better off if his conscience were to rebuke him on this point, because he would thereby have been more restrained from sin. We should understand that the Apostle is speaking here of lawful things. For it is part of a person’s glory that his conscience does not rebuke him: our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience (1 Corinthians 1:12); my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6).

Second, he shows what is evil in this matter: namely, acting against one’s conscience. Therefore, he says, but he who has doubts—that is, has the false opinion that he must discriminate among foods—is condemned if he eats. This is because he is eating food he regards as unlawful, and so, as far as it depends on him, he has the will to do what is unlawful. And so, because he sinned, he is self-condemned (Titus 3:11).

Third, he gives the reason for what he has said, stating, because he does not act from faith; therefore, he is condemned.

Here, "faith" can be understood in two ways. First, as the virtue of faith. Second, in the sense that conscience itself is called faith. These two meanings differ only as the universal differs from the particular. For what we hold universally by faith—for example, that the use of certain foods is lawful or unlawful—conscience then applies to a specific action, whether already performed or yet to be performed.

It is said, therefore, that he who eats while having doubts is condemned, because this action is not from faith but against faith—that is, against a truth of faith and against the conscience of the eater: without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6). That this is a sufficient reason for condemnation is shown when he says, for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. From this it seems, as a Gloss says, that "the entire life of unbelievers is sin," just as the entire life of believers is meritorious, insofar as it is directed to the glory of God, as it says in 1 Corinthians: whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).

However, it should be noted that the believer’s relationship to good differs from the unbeliever’s relationship to evil. For there is no condemnation in a person who has living faith, as was said above (Romans 8:1). In the unbeliever, however, the good of his nature exists alongside his unbelief. Therefore, when an unbeliever does something good from the dictate of reason and does not direct it toward an evil end, he does not sin. However, his deed is not meritorious, because it is not enlivened by grace.

This is what a Gloss says: "Nothing is good without the supreme good"—that is, no good is meritorious without God’s grace. And, "Where knowledge of eternal life and unchangeable truth is lacking" (which is knowledge that comes by faith), "virtue in the best behavior is false," insofar as it is not directed toward the end of eternal happiness. But when an unbeliever does something as an unbeliever, it is clear that he sins. Therefore, when a Gloss says, "Every deed which is not from faith is a sin," it must be understood in this way: Everything done against faith or against conscience is a sin. Even if an act seems good by its nature—as when a pagan preserves virginity or gives alms in honor of his gods—he sins by this very act: to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15).