Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 14:13-20

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother`s way, or an occasion of falling. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men. So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. Overthrow not for meat`s sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence." — Romans 14:13-20 (ASV)

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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).

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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).

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.

12. 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).

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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 .

16. 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.

17. 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.