Chapter 14
Avoidance of Scandal
Lecture 1
The Lord is the only judge
14:1 Now him who is weak in faith, take unto you: not in disputes about thoughts. [n. 1081]
14:2 For one believes that he may eat all things: but he who is weak, let him eat herbs. [n. 1083]
14:3 Let him who eats despise not him who eats not: and he who eats not, let him not judge him that eats. For God has taken him to him. [n. 1089]
14:4 Who are you that judges another man’s servant? [n. 1092] To his own lord he stands or falls. And he shall stand: for God is able to make him stand. [n. 1094]
14:5 For one judges between day and day: and another judges every day. Let every man abound in his own sense. [n. 1097]
14:6 He who regards the day regards it unto the Lord. And he who eats, eats to the Lord: for he gives thanks to God. And he who eats not, to the Lord he eats not and gives thanks to God. [n. 1099]
14:7 For none of us lives to himself: and no one dies to himself. [n. 1101]
14:8 For if we live, we live unto the Lord: or if we die, we die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. [n. 1103]
14:9 For to this end Christ died and rose again: that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. [n. 1104]
14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. [n. 1105]
14:11 For it is written: as I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God . [n. 1106]
14:12 Therefore every one of us shall render an account to God for himself. [n. 1112]
14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more. [n. 1114]
1081. After showing how one ought to become perfect, the Apostle now shows how the perfect should act toward the imperfect.
First, he shows that they ought not scandalize or judge them;
second, that they ought to uphold them, at we that are stronger (Rom 15:1).
In regard to the first he does two things:
first, he forbids improper judgments;
second, he forbids placing stumbling blocks before the weak, at but judge this rather (Rom 14:13).
In regard to the first 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 .
1082. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the early Church some of the Jews 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). These the Apostle calls 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. And 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 , i.e., join to yourselves in a spirit of charity and support, the man who is weak in faith , to whom can be applied the words of Wisdom: I am a man who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws (Wis 9:5); welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you (Rom 15:7); help a poor man for the commandment’s sake (Sir 29:9). But not for disputes of opinions , i.e., not discussing the fact that one’s opinion is contrary to another’s. For those who observed the practices of the law considered as violators those who did not observe them; and those who did not observe them despised as errant and ignorant those who did observe them: their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:15).
1083. Then when he says, for one believes , he explains what he had said:
first, he shows who are weak in faith;
second, how disputes over opinions are to be avoided, at let him who eats .
1084. In regard to the first it should be noted that among the observances of the law one dealt with distinguishing among foods, because some foods were forbidden in the law, as is clear from Leviticus 11:2 et seq.; and indeed every day it was necessary to 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 (Matt 15:11); everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:4).
1085. 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 animal is good according to its nature but evil in what it signifies, as a pig which signifies uncleanness. Therefore, the ancients were forbidden to eat its flesh, for in avoiding it they signified avoidance of uncleanness. For the entire life of that earlier people was centered on figures. But with the coming of Christ, who is the truth, the figures ceased.
1086. He adds in regard to the weak: but he who is weak, let him eat herbs . As if to say: he eats those foods which involve nothing unclean forbidden in the law. For among the classes of animals, say of land, sky, and water, some classes were permitted and some forbidden; but no herbs or trees were forbidden, as is clear in Leviticus (Lev 11).
There can be two reasons for this: one is that the produce of the earth had been granted man 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 (Gen 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 (Gen 9:3), i.e., types of animals.
The other reason is that in Paradise man 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.
1087. 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.
But according to Augustine, three periods of time respecting the practices of the law must be distinguished. The first is the time before Christ, when the practices of the law were in full vigor and still alive. The second is the time after the passion of Christ but before the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices were dead, because no one was bound by them; and when they were practiced, no one benefited by them. Although dead, they were not death-dealing, because the Jews converted to Christ could practice them without sin. It is to this time that 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 death-dealing, so that whoever practiced them sinned mortally.
1088. The Gloss explains this in another way, namely, that the weak person is the one prone to fall into sensual vices. Such a person should be advised to eat vegetables, i.e., mild and meager foods, which do not foment 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. Hence, too, those who perform penances abstain from certain foods, not because they are unclean, but in order to restrain sensual desire.
1089. 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, as weak in faith or prone to sensual vices: woe to you, despiser, will you not be despised in turn? (Isa 33:1); he who rejects you rejects me (Luke 10:16).
Second, in regard to the weak, saying: and he who eats not from certain foods, either because he is weak in faith, about which the Apostle speaks, 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 (Matt 7:1); you have no excuse, O man, when you judge another (Rom 2:1).
1090. 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 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 men, at who are you .
1091. First, therefore, he says: I have been correct in saying that one who eats should not judge him who does not, for God has taken him to him , namely, as a servant to be judged by him: I took two rods , i.e., two peoples (Zech 11:7); he drew me out of many waters (Ps 18:16).
But the one who is drawn to the judgment of a superior should not be judged by an inferior.
1092. Therefore, he concludes, who are you , i.e., 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? (Exod 2:14). Man, who made me a judge or divider over you? (Luke 12:14).
1093. But from this reasoning it seems to follow that a man’s judgment about another man is illicit.
The answer is that a man’s judgment is licit, as long as he acts with divinely granted authority. Hence, it says in Deuteronomy: hear them and judge what is righteous (Deut 1:16), and later he adds, judgment is God’s , i.e., passed with God’s authority. But if someone desires to usurp judgment over matters not divinely granted 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. But God has reserved to himself the judging of hidden things, which are mainly the thoughts of the heart and the future. Therefore, if anyone presumed to judge about 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, since 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 .
1094. Then when he says: to his own lord he stands or falls , he presents the second reason, which is taken from the end of merit or demerit.
For one could say that although a man has no authority to judge, he should involve himself in the judgment of 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 even for this reason we should leave to God judgments about our neighbor, unless we are acting in his stead in judging by 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 .
1095. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes that whatever happens to man pertains to God when he says: to his own lord he stands , i.e., by doing right: our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem (Ps 122:2), or falls , i.e., by sinning: fallen, no more to rise is the virgin Israel (Amos 5:1).
He presents it as a disjunctive, 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 (Eccl 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 man 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 men acts of justice look to God’s glory: that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven (Matt 5:16). The fact that we fall by sinning is for men the occasion for blaspheming God: the name of God is blasphemed among the gentiles (Rom 2:24).
Or the words to his own lord he stands or falls should be explained as regarding the judgment of his master: the one who judges me is the Lord (1 Cor 4:4).
1096. Second, he shows that it pertains to God to judge a man, 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? (Ps 41:8); rejoice not over me, O my enemy, when I fall, I shall rise (Mic 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 he will make him stand again on account of his goodness: the Spirit entered into me and set me upon my feet (Ezek 3:24), 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 (Rom 11:23).
1097. 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 , i.e., 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 (Lev 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 (Jdt 8:6).
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 (Ps 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 fast, although some abstain on certain days and not on others: for everything there is a season (Eccl 3:1).
1098. Second, he shows that all these things can pertain to the glory of God, saying: let every man abound in his own sense , i.e., be left to his own judgment: God made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his own counsel (Sir 15:14). Or in his own sense , i.e., according to his own mind let him be zealous to abound to the glory of God, according to 1 Corinthians: seek to abound unto the edifying of the Church (1 Cor 14:12).
But this seems to apply to things that are not of themselves evil. In things that are of themselves evil, however, man must not be left to follow his own mind. But that a person discriminates between days seems to be evil of 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 (Gal 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 illicit 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 not be a small 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 licitly undertaken on any day without clashing with the common custom, or with the customs established by those in authority.
1099. 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 act 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 .
1100. 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 refraining from it on another day, regards it unto the Lord , i.e., 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 (Sir 33:7).
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 (Matt 9:14). Hence he says: and he who eats , namely, every day, eats in honor of the Lord , i.e., to the glory of God; which is proved by the fact that he gives thanks to God , namely, for the food he eats: some enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving (1 Tim 4:3); the poor shall eat and be filled (Ps 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 , i.e., abstains every day, to the Lord , i.e., unto the honor of the Lord, he eats not . This is clear, because he gives thanks to God , who gave him the will and virtue to abstain: give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess 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.
1101. 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 inordinate 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 (Heb 2:4). To himself , i.e., for himself, because that would be to enjoy himself: not seeking what is useful for me (1 Cor 10:33); not to us, O Lord, not to us give the glory (Ps 114:9); or to himself , i.e., according to his own rule, as those who say: let our might be our law of right (Wis 2:11); or to himself , i.e., according to his own judgment: I do not even judge myself (1 Cor 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 (Rom 6:7). For to himself , i.e., to his own judgment or on account of himself or to his own example; but to the example of Christ, someone dies to vices: the death he died to sin, he died once (Rom 6:10); and later: so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin (Rom 6:11).
1102. Second, he describes the right intention of believers, saying: if we live with our bodily life , we live unto the Lord , i.e., to the glory of the Lord; and if we die a bodily death, we die unto the Lord , i.e., to the honor of the Lord: Christ will be magnified in my body whether through death or through life (Phil 1:20).
Or it is understood such that he says we live and we die about a spiritual life and death; it ought to be explained that he says unto the Lord , i.e., in the judgment of the Lord who was appointed by God to be the judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42).
1103. Then when he says, therefore, whether we live , he clarifies his proposition by considering the condition of believers.
First, he concludes from the foregoing the condition of the faithful, namely, that they are not their own but someone else’s. For those who are their own are free men; they live to themselves and die to themselves.
Therefore, because it has been stated that the faithful do not live or die to themselves but to the Lord, he concludes: therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s , servants, as it were, of him who has power over life and death: you were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men (1 Cor 7:23); you were bought with a great price (1 Cor 6:20); we are yours, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse! (1 Chr 12:18).
1104. Second, he assigns the cause of this condition, saying: for to this end Christ died and rose again , i.e., 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 Cor 5:15).
Thus, therefore, by all the foregoing the Apostle has proved that each one stands or falls before his master, namely, by the fact that believers give thanks to God and that they live and die to the Lord and that in life and in death we are the Lord’s.
1105. 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 , i.e., of what use or need is your judgment, 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? (Mic 2:10).
1106. Second, he foretells the future judgment of Christ: As if to say: I am correct in stating 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 judiciary 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 (Matt 25:20).
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 Cor 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 (Matt 19:28).
1107. 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 .
1108. 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 (Isa 45:23).
Our text has this: I have sworn by myself that to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear .
1109. Three things are stated in these words: first, 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 as things foretold according to lower causes, as prophecies that threaten. Hence it says in a psalm: the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind (Ps 110:4). But men, as the Apostle says in Hebrews, swear by someone greater than themselves (Heb 6:16). But because God has none 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 (Deut 30:20); with you is the fountain of life (Ps 36:9). Therefore, the formula of the Lord’s oath is, as I live . As if to say: I swear by the life I uniquely live.
1110. Second, the coming subjection of the creature to God is foretold, when it is said: every knee shall bow to me , i.e., to Christ. In this is designated the complete subjection of the rational creature to Christ. For men are wont 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 (Phil 2:11).
1111. 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 , i.e., 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 (Phil 2:11).
Every tongue can be understood as the expression of the knowledge of men or of angels, as it says in 1 Corinthians: if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (1 Cor 13:1).
This is fulfilled now in this life, not as to each man but as to the classes of each man. From each class of men some are not subjected to Christ and confess him by faith, but in the future judgment all and each 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 (Heb 2:8).
1112. Then when he says, therefore every one of us , he draws the conclusion from the foregoing.
First, the conclusion intended from what he had just said, saying: therefore , from the fact that every knee will bend before Christ, every one of us shall render an account to God for himself , i.e., before the tribunal of Christ: on the day of judgment every man shall render an account for every careless word he uttered (Matt 12:36); the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants (Matt 18:23).
1113. 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 (Heb 13:17).
The answer is that in the very fact that prelates 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 (Ezek 3:18ff.).
1114. Second, he draws the conclusion chiefly intended from the entire preceding part, saying: let us not therefore judge one another any more , i.e., with a rash judgment, which is included in the reason given above: do not pronounce judgment before the time (1 Cor 4:5).
Lecture 2
Mercy towards the weak
14:13 But judge this rather, that you put not a stumbling block or a scandal in your brother’s way. [n. 1115]
14:14 I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common of itself: but to him who esteems any thing to be common, to him it is common. [n. 1117]
14:15 For if, because of food, your brother be grieved, you no longer walk according to charity. Destroy not him with your food, for whom Christ died. [n. 1122]
14:16 Let not then our good be evil spoken of. [n. 1126]
14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink: but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. [n. 1127]
14:18 For he who in this serves Christ pleases God and is approved of men. [n. 1129]
14:19 Therefore, let us follow after the things that are of peace and keep the things that are of edification, one towards another. [n. 1130]
14:20 Destroy not the work of God for food. [n. 1131]
1115. After forbidding human judgments, the Apostle now forbids putting stumbling blocks before one’s neighbor.
First, he presents his proposition;
second, he clarifies it, at for if, because of food .
In regard to the first he does three things.
1116. 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 his own actions, lest they be a scandal unto others. And this is what he says: but judge this rather, that you put not 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 an illegal word or deed presenting the occasion of ruin to someone after the manner of a stone against which one strikes his foot and falls.
A scandal is more serious than a hindrance, for the latter can be anything which merely retards forward movement; but a scandal, i.e., a striking, seems to exist when someone is disposed 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 (Isa 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 (Matt 18:7).
1117. Second, he teaches that what was considered a stumbling block was of its very nature and in itself lawful.
In regard to this it should be noted that, as was stated above, there were among the Romans some Jews converted to Christ, who distinguished among foods according to the law; but others, having a perfect faith, used all foods without distinction, which of 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 unclean the food which all men use, e.g., the flesh of swine, hares, and food of that sort. Furthermore, the nations which used such foods were not God’s portion; consequently, such food was unclean.
The words nothing is common amount to 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 Tim 4:4). Second, he says that he is persuaded in Christ Jesus that in itself nothing is unclean, namely, because foods of their very nature never were unclean, but they were avoided for a time as unclean in keeping with a commandment of the law as a figure. But Christ removed this by fulfilling all 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).
1118. Third, he shows how this could be unlawful accidentally, inasmuch as 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 and so 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).
1119. So it is clear that something licit in itself becomes illicit for one who does it against his conscience, even though his conscience is erroneous. It is reasonable that this be so, for acts are judged according to the will of the performer. But the will is moved by the thing apprehended. Hence the will tends toward what the apprehensive power represents to it, and it is according to this that the action is qualified or specified. Therefore, if a person’s reason judges that something is sinful and the will is drawn to it as something to be done, it is clear that the person has a will to commit a sin. For this reason his external action, which is informed from the will, is a sin. For the same reason, if one thinks that something venially sinful is a mortal sin, if he 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 someone afterwards 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 mortal, because the will and the action are not informed by a succeeding apprehension but by the one preceding the will and the action.
1120. There is no doubt about what we have said, but there can be doubt whether if someone has an erroneous conscience whereby 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, should 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, bind him more strongly than conscience.
Second, because this position would put him in a perplexed state, 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, because even before the spreading of the Gospel, it was not lawful for the 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 distinguish between foods, i.e., to regard some food as unclean, and he does not distinguish among them, i.e., by abstaining from them, he sins as though he were eating unclean food. And so an erroneous conscience obliges, even in matters that are per se illicit.
The answer to the first objection about the law of God is that the binding force of even 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. For 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 to be 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.
1121. There is still another difficulty.
For one is not said to place a stumbling block by doing a good work, even though someone takes the good work as a stumbling block, as Matthew says that the Pharisees took the words of Jesus as a stumbling block (Matt 15:12). But not to discriminate 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. For according to this, 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 which has the appearance of evil: abstain from all appearances of evil (1 Thess 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. But those weak in faith, considering 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.
1122. Then when he says, for if, because of food , he clarifies what he had said:
first, that scandals must not be placed before a brother;
second, how something is common, at all things indeed are clean .
1123. In regard to the first he presents four arguments, the first of which is taken on the part of charity, saying: for if your brother be 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 Cor 13:5).
1124. Then when he says, destroy not him with your food , he presents the second argument taken on the part of Christ’s death.
For he seems to put little value on Christ’s death who voids its fruit for the sake of food. Hence he says: with your food , of which you eat all without distinction, destroy not him , i.e., be a stumbling block for whom , i.e., for whose salvation, Christ died : Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust (1 Pet 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 Cor 8:11).
1125. Then when he says, let not then , he presents the third reason, which is taken on the part of the gifts of spiritual grace.
First, he shows what impropriety follows against such gifts from the fact that we place a stumbling block;
second, he clarifies what he had said, at for the kingdom of God ;
third, he draws a conclusion, at therefore, let us follow after the things that are of peace .
1126. In regard to the first it should be noted that because some ate all foods without distinction in the early Church and thus set an obstacle before the weak, this impropriety followed, namely, that the weak blasphemed the faith of Christ, asserting that it fostered greediness in regard to food, contrary to the commandment of the law. Therefore, the Apostle says: Although the Lord Jesus declared that nothing is unclean, we let not then our good , i.e., the faith and grace of Christ, though which you have obtained freedom from the ceremonies of the law, be evil spoken of by the weak who declare that it caters to man’s gluttony: they blaspheme that honorable name by which you are called (Jas 2:7); concerning this good it says in a psalm: for me it is good to be near God (Ps 73:6).
1127. 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 (Matt 6:10) and Micah: the Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion (Mic 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 mainly in things interior to man and not exterior. Hence Luke says: the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21).
But things which are exterior and pertain to the body pertain to the kingdom of God to the extent that through them the 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 inasmuch as we use them or abstain from them. Hence 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 Cor 8:8).
Yet the use of or abstinence from food and drink pertains to the kingdom of God, insofar as a man’s affections are ordered or disordered in regard to them. Hence Augustine says in Questions on the Gospel , and 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, provided 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 suffers the lack of these, either when he should or of necessity must be deprived of them .
1128. 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, whereby a man renders to each person what is his due and the intention of doing such works, as it says in Matthew: seek first the kingdom of God and his justice (Matt 6:33). Peace refers to the effect of justice. For peace is particularly disturbed, when one man does not give to another what he owes him. Hence it says in Isaiah: peace is a work of justice (Isa 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 (Ps 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 (Rom 5:5). For 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 Cor 13:6), and in Galatians: the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace (Gal 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 (Matt 25:34). In that kingdom perfect justice will exist without any sin: all your people are righteous (Isa 60:21). There will be perfect peace without any disquiet or fear: my people will abide in a peaceful habitation (Isa 32:18). There will be joy there: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away (Isa 35:1).
1129. Then he proves what he had said, namely, that the kingdom of God consists in these things. For the man who seems to belong to the kingdom of God is one who is pleasing to God and approved by holy men. But this happens to the man 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 (Col 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 (Wis 4:10) and is approved by men , i.e., approved by the members of this kingdom: who has been tested by it and found perfect (Sir 31:10).
1130. Then when he says, therefore , he infers the intended admonition. Inasmuch as 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, i.e., strive to accomplish the things through which we conserve the peace of Christians: strive for peace and holiness (Heb 12:14). Let us keep the things that are of edification, one towards another , i.e., things by which we upbuild one another, i.e., by which we preserve what is good and are stimulated to become better: strive to excel in building up the Church (1 Cor 14:12). Which indeed will happen if we have lived in justice and spiritual joy.
1131. 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, to which we owe this reverence in the sense that what God does we should not destroy for some bodily convenience: And 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 which serve as man’s food are God’s works, as the produce of the earth and the flesh of animals, which have been granted to man for food, as it says in Genesis (Gen 1:29; 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 (Phil 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.
Lecture 3
Clean and unclean food
14:20 All things indeed are clean: but it is evil for that man who eats with offense. [n. 1132]
14:21 It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine: nor any thing whereby your brother is offended or scandalized or made weak. [n. 1134]
14:22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he who condemns not himself in that which he allows. [n. 1136]
14:23 But he who discerns, if he eats, is condemned; because he does not act from faith. For all that is not of faith is sin. [n. 1139]
1132. 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 of their very nature, saying: all things indeed , which can pertain to man’s food are clean , namely, of its very nature, because of its very nature it does not have the power to defile a man’s soul, as it says in Matthew: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man (Matt 15:11); and in 1 Timothy: everything created by God is good (1 Tim 4:4). But certain things were declared unclean under the law not of their nature but by reason of what they signified, as is clear in Leviticus 11:2 et seq. But Christ even removed this uncleanness by fulfilling the figures of the old law. Hence it was said to Peter: what God has cleansed, you must not call common , i.e., 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 man, namely, it stains his soul to eat it; and this 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, at blessed is he who condemns not .
1133. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows what is evil in taking food, saying: Although all things are by their nature clean, but it is evil for that man who eats a certain food with offense , i.e., with confusion and scandal to neighbor: woe to the world for stumbling blocks (Matt 18:7).
1134. Second, he shows what is good in eating foods of this sort, saying: it is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine , the first of which 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 (Eph 5:18), or even to make a man more apt for contemplating spiritual things: I have thought to deprive myself of wine, that I might give my mind to wisdom (Eccl 2:3).
But this is not what the Apostle intends to say here, but that it is good not to use these, if they are a stumbling block to the brethren. This is apparent from what he says: nor any thing whereby your brother is offended . What I say, I say not only about wine and meat, namely, that it is good not to use them, but I say it of any other food; your brother is offended , i.e., disturbed about you, as if you were acting unlawfully. By this his peace is disturbed or scandalized , i.e., is tempted to fall into sin; wherefore, his justice is injured or made weak , i.e., begins at least to wonder whether what is done is lawful, so that his spiritual joy is lessened. Hence the Apostle says: if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother (1 Cor 8:13).
1135. But since it is lawful to use these foods, if one must abstain from using them for fear of putting a stumbling block before his neighbor, then by the same token it seems that one should abstain from all lawful things which are not necessary for salvation, as justice, peace, and spiritual joy are necessary. So it seems that it is not lawful for a man to demand his due for fear of putting a stumbling block before his neighbor.
The answer is that if the stumbling block proceeds from the weakness or ignorance of those scandalized on account of it, then to avoid this scandal a man should abstain from lawful things, if they are not necessary for salvation. For this is scandal of little ones, which the Lord commands us to avoid: see that you do not despise one of these little ones (Matt 18:10). But if scandal of this sort arises from the malice of those scandalized, such scandal is Pharisaical and the Lord taught that it should be ignored. Hence, to avoid scandal of this sort, it is not necessary to abstain from lawful things.
But yet in regard to scandal of little ones, it should be noted that to avoid it, a person is bound to postpone the use of lawful things, until this scandal can be removed by explaining one’s conduct. But if the scandal still remains after such an explanation, then it would seem to proceed not from ignorance or from weakness but from malice, so that it will now be Pharisaical scandal.
1136. Third, he rejects an excuse. For someone might say: although my neighbor may be scandalized at my eating all foods indiscriminately, yet to profess my faith, which tells me that it is lawful, I will use food indiscriminately.
But the Apostle rejects this reasoning, saying: do you , who would use all foods indiscriminately, have faith , through which it is clear that it is lawful to use these foods. This faith is good and praiseworthy, have it secretly before God , whom such faith pleases: God is well pleased with faith and meekness (Sir 18:14). As if to say: it is not fitting to manifest your faith by an outward work, when this becomes a stumbling block to your neighbor.
1137. But this seems to be contradicted by something he said above: man believes with his heart and so is justified; and he confesses with his mouth and so is saved (Rom 10:10). Therefore, it does not seem to be enough to keep the faith in your heart between yourself and God, but it should be manifested by confessing it before one’s neighbor.
The answer is that among the matters of faith some have not been perfectly manifested by the Church, as in the early Church it had not been perfectly declared to men that Jewish converts were not bound to observe the practices of the law, and as in the time of Augustine the Church had not yet declared that the soul was not transferred from the parent. Hence, in cases of this kind it is enough for a man to keep his faith between himself and God. Nor should he manifest his faith, if it scandalizes his neighbor, except perhaps among those who have to decide about the faith.
But certain things 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, but one should 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 just because the Pharisees were scandalized, as it says in Matthew 15:12 et seq.
It should also be noted that although in such matters a person should manifest his faith by oral confession, he is not required to manifest it by performing the outward work. Thus, if someone hold by faith that the use of marriage is licit, he is not required as a manifestation of his faith to use. And so it is also not required of those who have correct faith, that they manifest their faith by the use of foods. For they could manifest it by word.
1138. Then when he says, blessed is he who condemns not , he shows how the use of foods becomes unclean for certain persons from the fact that it is against their conscience.
In regard to this he does three things: first, he shows what is good in this matter, in order, namely, that a person not have remorse of conscience from something he does not do. Hence, he says: blessed is he who condemns not himself , i.e., whose conscience neither chides nor condemns him in that which he allows to be done.
This, of course, supposes that he approves with right faith that which is to be done. But if he uses a false opinion in approving something to be done, say if he deems it a service to God to kill Christ’s disciples, as it says in John, he is not excused just because he does not judge himself in this matter (John 16:2). Indeed, he would be happier if his conscience were to rebuke him on this point, because he would thereby have been restrained more from sin. But we should understand that the Apostle is speaking here of lawful things. For it pertains to man’s glory that his conscience not rebuke him: our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience (1 Cor 1:12); my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6).
1139. Second, he shows what is evil in this matter, namely, that one acts against his conscience. Hence he says: but he who discerns , i.e., has the false opinion that he must discriminate among foods, if he eats , namely, food which he regards as unlawful, is condemned , because so far as in him lies, he has the will to do what is unlawful; and so, because he sinned, he is self-condemned (Titus 3:11).
1140. Third, he assigns the cause of what he had said, saying: because he does not act from faith ; therefore, he is condemned.
Here faith can be taken in two ways: in one way of faith as a virtue; in another way, so that conscience is called faith. These two meanings differ only as particular and universal. For what we hold by faith universally, for example, that the use of foods is lawful or unlawful, conscience applies to a deed performed or to be performed.
It is said, therefore, that he who eats and distinguishes is condemned, because this is not from faith but against faith, i.e., against a truth of faith and against the conscience of the eater: without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). That this is a sufficient reason for condemnation is shown when he says: whatever does not proceed from faith is sin . From this it seems that, as a Gloss says, the entire life of unbelievers is sin , just as the entire life of believers is meritorious, inasmuch 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 Cor 10:31).
1141. But it should be noted that the believer’s relation to good differs from the unbeliever’s relation to evil. For there is nothing of condemnation in a person who has living faith, as was said above (Rom 8:1). But in the unbeliever along with his unbelief is the good of his nature. Therefore, when an unbeliever does something good from the dictate of reason and does not refer it to an evil end, he does not sin. However, his deed is not meritorious, because it was not enlivened by grace. This is what a Gloss says: nothing is good without the supreme good , i.e., no good is meritorious without God’s grace, and where knowledge of eternal life and unchangeable truth is lacking , which knowledge comes by faith, virtue in the best behavior is false , inasmuch as it is not referred to the end of eternal happiness. But when an unbeliever does something from the fact that he is an unbeliever, it is clear that he sins. Hence when a Gloss says: every deed which is not from faith is a sin , it must be understood in the following way: Everything against faith or against conscience is a sin, and if it seems of its nature to be good, as when a pagan in honor of his gods preserves virginity or gives an alms, he sins by this very fact: to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted (Titus 1:15).