Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 14:20-23

"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. It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do anything] whereby thy brother stumbleth. The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." — Romans 14:20-23 (ASV)

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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).

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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).