Romans 14:9–18

The creation was made by Christ the Lord, but because of sin it has become separated from its maker and taken captive. But God the Father sent his Son from heaven to earth to teach his creation what to do in order to escape the hands of its captors, so that his work should not perish. For this reason he allowed himself to be killed by his enemies, so that by going down to hell he could condemn sin, because he was killed as an innocent man, and liberate those whom the devil held there. Therefore, since he showed the way of salvation to the living and offered himself for them and also delivered the dead from hell, he is Lord of both the living and the dead. For he has turned the lost into his servants.

As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say, "If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence." For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam-namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God-that we might recover in Christ Jesus.

For as it was not possible that the man who had once for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin,-the Son effected both these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation, upon whom [Paul], exhorting us unhesitatingly to believe, again says, "Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring down Christ; or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to liberate Christ again from the dead." Then he continues, "If thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved." And he renders the reason why the Son of God did these things, saying, "For to this end Christ both lived, and died, and revived, that He might rule over the living and the dead."

"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living."

And so let us at least convince thee, that He is thoughtful for our salvation. For had He not had this great care for us, where were the need of the Dispensation (or Incarnation)? He then that hath shown so much anxiety about our becoming His, as to take the form of a servant, and to die, will He despise us after we have become so? This cannot be so, assuredly it cannot! Nor would He choose to waste so much pains. "For to this end" (he says) "he also died," as if any one were to say, Such an one will not have the heart to despise his servant. For he minded his own purse. (Cf. Ex. xxi. 21.) For indeed we are not so much in love with money, as is He with our salvation. Wherefore it was not money, but His own Blood that He gave as bail for us. And for this cause He would not have the heart to give them up, for whom He had laid down so great a price. See too how he shows that His power also is unspeakable. For he says, "to this end He both died and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living." And above he said, "for whether we live or die, we are His." See what a wide extended Mastery! see what unconquerable might! see what exact providence over us! For tell me not, he means, of the living. Even for the departed He taketh care. But if He doth of the departed, it is quite plain that He doth of the living also. For He hath not omitted any point for this Mastery, making out for Himself more claims than men do, and especially beside all other things in order to take care of us. For a man puts down money, and for this clings strongly to his own slave. But He Himself paid down His death; and the salvation of one who was purchased at so great a price, and the Mastery over whom He had gained with so much anxiety and trouble, He is not likely to count of no value. But this he says to make the Judaizer abashed, and to persuade him to call to mind the greatness of the benefit, and how that when dead he had come to be alive, and that there was nothing that he gained from the Law, and how that it would be the last degree of unfeelingness, to leave Him Who had shown so much care toward him, and run away back to the Law. After attacking him then sufficiently, ...

The saint says at the end: The words, "For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living," must be taken as referring to souls and bodies; the souls being the living, as being immortal, and the bodies being dead.

There are some people who think that Christ had to die in order to become the Lord of the dead and that he had to rise again in order to become the Lord of the living. But I think this assertion can be refuted as follows. Christ's rule over all creation consists of two parts. First, by virtue of his majesty and power as the Creator of all things who rules the universe, he has everything in subjection, not only good and holy minds and spirits but also rebellious ones and those whom the Scriptures call "the wicked angels." In this sense he is known as the Almighty, as John says in his Apocalypse: "Thus says the one who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."2Second, given that so good a Son of so good a Father does not want rational spirits to bend to the obedience of his law by force but waits for them to come voluntarily, so that they will seek what is good freely and not of necessity, he persuades them by teaching them rather than by commanding them and by inviting them rather than by forcing them. Thus he was pleased to go even to the point of death, in order to leave an example of new life and a way of dying for those who want to die to sin and evil. Christ is therefore Lord of both the living and the dead—of the living, because he is the head of those who by the example of his resurrection look for a new and heavenly life here on earth, and of the dead, because these same people bear the death of Christ about in their bodies and mortify their members which are on earth.

The coming of Christ will find people alive and will bring the dead back to life. It does not matter whether he brings you back to life or finds you alive, as long as you appear righteous before him.

This, he says, let it assure you that the Lord cares about the correction of the weak. For He Who shed His blood and died in order to be our Lord, can He not care for those who have become His servants? This is similar to how we commonly say: is it possible that someone would not care for his servant, for whom he paid so dearly? And if, he says, He cares for the dead, then all the more for the living. All this is said with the aim of shaming the Judaizing Christian and persuading him to consider how ungratefully he acts toward Christ Who died for him, by continuing to hold to the law.

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.

Once again Paul takes up his earlier theme and by adding the word brother shows how inappropriate this kind of judging is.

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?"

And so he seems to be setting them upon a level, but from that he has said, he shows that the difference between them is great. First then by the appellation of "brother" he does away with disputatiousness, and then also by calling that awful day to their mind. For after saying, "Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" he proceeds, "For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ."

And he seems indeed to be again rebuking the more advanced in saying this, but he is putting the mind of the Judaizer to confusion by not only calling for his reverence to the benefit that had been done him, but also making him afraid of the punishment to come. "For we shall all," he says, "stand before the judgment-seat of Christ."

This reflects the behavior of those who have advanced a little way in knowledge but reject and refuse to instruct those who are less able to attain this higher understanding. Others show how unskilled and rebellious they are by judging (by accusing and condemning) those who are trying to obtain a knowledge which is higher and deeper than what they are capable of understanding. The apostle wants to reprove the blame which attaches to both of these by ordering the first group not to reject or despise the less advanced and the others not to think of themselves as superior when in fact they have no ability to judge them.… The judgment seat of God is the same thing as the judgment seat of Christ, to which Paul refers when writing to the Corinthians.

By what authority do you condemn your brother as a voracious glutton? For what reason do you despise him, as if he were weak or his fast were pointless? The Lord will judge our consciences to see with what sort of desire and intention we did what we did.

"Why do you pass judgment on your brother?" was said to the Jews. "Why do you despise your brother?" was said to the Gentiles. Neither of you should do either, says Paul, because you are under obligation to maintain Christ's standards of behavior in your life.

Paul addresses these words to the Jews.

You, the non-eater, why do you condemn your brother who eats, as lacking self-control, because he eats? He is your brother; you must not despise your own member. Will you give an answer for him? He himself will stand before the judgment and will bear the punishment himself. Do you see how, in addressing the mature one, he strikes fear into the very one who Judaizes, as one who must give an account at the dreadful judgment?

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).

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).

For having been killed, the future Judge rose from the dead, and therefore he rightly said: "As I live." … For not only do I live, but I will come to judge, and my enemies will confess my name and kneel before me, acknowledging that I am God from God.

"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

See how he again puts his mind into confusion, while he seems to be rebuking the other. For he intimates some such thing, as if he had said, How does it affect you? Are you to be punished for him? But this he does not say, but hints at it by putting it in a milder form, and saying, "For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ:" and, "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." And he introduces the prophet in witness of the subjection of all to Him, yea a subjection extended even to those in the Old Testament, and of all absolutely. For he does not barely say every one shall worship, but "shall confess," that is, shall give an account of what he has done. Be in anxiety then as seeing the Master of all sitting on his judgment-seat, and do not make schisms and divisions in the Church, by breaking away from grace, and running over to the Law. For the Law also is His. And why say I so of the Law? Even those in the Law and those before the Law are His. And it is not the Law that will demand an account of thee, but Christ, of thee and of all the human race. See how he has released us from the fear of the Law. Then that he may not seem to be saying this to frighten them for the occasion, but to have come to it in the course he had proposed himself, ...

This shows that we must all account for our actions to the Lord alone.

That we will be judged, as slaves by a master, the prophet testifies to this, he says. And with the words "before Me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess God" he showed the highest degree of submission. "Shall confess," that is, shall give an account of what he has done. – To whom? Not to the law, but to Christ. So then, why do you submit yourself to the law?

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 (Isa 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, 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.

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).

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).

Since we are not going to give account of each other, says Paul, let us not condemn one another over the issues mentioned above.

I have replied, dearest son, to your letter, so far as my poor ability prevailed; and I have shown, as far as I could, what I think; prescribing to no one, so as to prevent any prelate from determining what he thinks right, as he shall give an account of his own doings to the Lord, according to what the blessed Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans writes and says: "Every one of us shall give account for himself: let us not therefore judge one another."

A brother asked Ammon, 'Speak a word to me.' He said to him, 'Go and meditate like the criminals in prison. They keep asking, where is the judge, when will he come? and because they are waiting for him they dread their punishment. The monk should always be waiting for his trial, chiding his soul, saying: "Alas, how shall I stand before the judgement seat of Christ? How shall I give an account of my actions?" If you always meditate like this, you will be saved.'

We shall account to God for those things about which the law is silent. But if we do not rebuke someone when we see him sinning, we shall also give an account to the Lord for that.

And let the presbyters be compassionate and merciful to all, bringing back those that wander, visiting all the sick, and not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always "providing for that which is becoming in the sight of God and man;" abstaining from all wrath, respect of persons, and unjust judgment; keeping far off from all covetousness, not quickly crediting [an evil report] against any one, not severe in judgment, as knowing that we are all under a debt of sin. If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to forgive; for we are before the eyes of our Lord and God, and "we must all appear at the judgment-seat of Christ, and must every one give an account of himself." Let us then serve Him in fear, and with all reverence, even as He Himself has commanded us, and as the apostles who preached the Gospel unto us, and the prophets who proclaimed beforehand the coming of the Lord [have alike taught us]. Let us be zealous in the pursuit of that which is good, keeping ourselves from causes of offence, from false brethren, and from those who in hypocrisy bear the name of the Lord, and draw away vain men into error.

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).

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.).

Is not each party innocent in its temperamental preference but grossly culpable if it allows anything so subjective, contingent, and (with a little effort) conquerable as a temperamental preference to become a cause of division among brethren? If we cannot lay down our tastes, along with other carnal baggage at the church door, surely we should at least bring them in to be humbled and, if necessary, modified, not to be indulged?

Joseph asked Poemen, 'Tell me how to become a monk.' He said, 'If you want to find rest in this life and the next, say at every moment, "Who am I?" and judge no one.'

"Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way."

This does not apply to one less than the other: wherefore it may well fit with both, both the advanced man that was offended at the observance of meats, and the unadvanced that stumbled at the vehement rebuke given him. But consider, I pray you, the great punishment we shall suffer, if we give offence at all. For if in a case where the thing was against law, yet, as they rebuked unseasonably, he forbade their doing it, in order that a brother might not be made to offend and stumble; when we give an offence without having anything to set right even, what treatment shall we deserve? For if not saving others be a crime (and that it is so, he who buried the talent proves), what will be the effect of giving him offence also? But what if he gives himself the offence, you may say, by being weak? Why this is just why thou oughtest to be patient. For if he were strong, then he would not require so much attention. But now, since he is of the feebler sort, he does on this ground need considerable care. Let us then yield him this, and in all respects bear his burdens, as it is not of our own sins only that we shall have to give an account, but for those also wherein we cause others to offend. For if that account, were even by itself hard to pass, when these be added too, how are we to be saved? And let us not suppose, that if we can find accomplices in our sins, that will be an excuse; as this will prove an addition to our punishment. Since the serpent too was punished more than the woman, as was the woman likewise more than the man (1 Tim. ii. 14); and Jezebel also was punished more severely than Ahab, who had seized the vineyard; for it was she that devised the whole matter, and caused the king to offend. (1 Kings xxi. 23, 25, 29.) And therefore thou, when thou art the author of destruction to others, wilt suffer more severely than those who have been subverted by thee. For sinning is not so ruinous as leading others also into the same. Wherefore he speaks of those who "not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." (Rom. i. 32.) And so when we see any sinning, let us, so far from thrusting them on, even pull them back from the pit of iniquity, that we may not have to be punished for the ruin of others besides ourselves.

From here on, Paul subtly begins to recommend abstinence and says that even though those who eat are strong, they ought to abstain in case the weak are subjected to a stumbling block by their example.

And thus my mind has been thrown into confusion, in the fear that, having exhorted you myself to perseverance in single husbandhood and widowhood, I may now, by the mention of precipitate marriages, put "an occasion of falling" in your way.

Paul is saying this to the Gentiles, even if it appears that he is speaking to the Jews.… For the Gentiles at Rome were doing many things deliberately in order to upset the Jews, partly because they were the majority in the church and partly because they were of a higher social class.

Both of you, he says, cease the quarrel that exists between you, and neither should you, who eat all things, give the weaker one an occasion for stumbling, as though severely reproaching him, nor should you, who do not eat all things, give your brother an occasion for scandal, as though observing Jewish practices. Stumbling and scandal are mutually fitting to both persons.

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).

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.

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).

Christ had said: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man but what comes out of the mouth—this defiles a man." This applies to food as well.

This means that nothing is common or unclean when eaten with faith in Christ.

After first rebuking the person who judgeth his brother, and moving him to leave off this reproaching, he then explains himself further upon the doctrinal part, and instructs in a dispassionate tone the weaker sort, displaying in this case too a great deal of gentleness. For he does not say he shall be punished, nor anything of the sort, but merely disburdens him of his fears in the matter, and that with a view to his being more easily persuaded with what he tells him; and he says, "I know, and am persuaded." And then to prevent any of those who did not trust him saying, And what is it to us if thou art persuaded? for thou art no trustworthy evidence to be set in competition with so great a law, and with oracles brought down from above, he proceeds, "in the Lord." That is, as having learned from Him, as having my confidence from Him. The judgment then is not one of the mind of man. What is it that thou art persuaded of and knowest? Tell us. "That there is nothing unclean of itself." By nature, he says, nothing is unclean but it becomes so by the spirit in which a man uses it. Therefore it becomes so to himself only, and not to all. "For to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." What then? Why not correct thy brother, that he may think it not unclean? Why not with full authority call him away from this habit of mind and conception of things, that he may never make it common? My reason is, he says, I am afraid to grieve him.

It is evident that all these foods enjoy again the blessings they received at their creation, now that the law has ended. We must not return to the legal prohibition of foods commanded for certain reasons and which evangelical liberty, setting us free from its bondage, has now discontinued.

Paul is not saying here that there is anything which is unclean but that for someone with a tender conscience things do become unclean, for even after coming to faith in Christ he is still judging according to Jewish custom.

Having taught that one must not reproach the weak, he finally teaches about food and instructs the weaker person not to fear or dread it as unclean. I, he says, know and am convinced not by human reasoning, but in the Lord Jesus, that is, having been taught and assured by the Lord Jesus, "that nothing is unclean in itself," that is, nothing is unclean by nature, but becomes unclean from the intention of the one who uses it. For him alone it is both defiled and unclean, and not for all.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

In another epistle Paul says: Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other. Since God does not care one way or the other about food, Paul tells us to maintain a spirit of charity, by which God has seen fit to deliver us from sin.

The Christian must serve everyone who is upset with him in every way, at least insofar as he can.

Look at how wonderfully Paul develops his argument. He starts off at the bottom, by referring to food. Then he goes on to call the person who is sinned against a "brother." Then he calls what has been done to him "destruction." Fourth, he says that this outrage has been committed against someone "for whom Christ died." Fifth, he says that someone who does this causes godliness to be blasphemed, and sixth, that we have not come to faith in Christ in order to be able to enjoy this or that but in order to be able to share in righteousness, which means in sinlessness, peace and joy.

You see how far, for the present, he goes in affection for him, showing that he makes so great account of him, that with a view not to grieve him he does not venture even to enjoin things of great urgency, but by yieldingness would rather draw him to himself, and by charity. For even when he has freed him of his fears, he does not drag him and force him, but leaves him his own master. For keeping a person from meats is no such matter as overwhelming with grief. You see how much he insists upon charity. And this is because he is aware that it can do everything. And on this ground he makes somewhat larger demand upon them. For so far he says from its being proper for them to distress you at all, they ought even, if need be, not to hesitate at condescending to you. Whence he proceeds to say, "Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." Or dost thou not value thy brother enough even to purchase his salvation at the price of abstinence from meats? And yet Christ refused not to become a slave, nor yet to die for him; but thou dost not despise even food, that thou mayest save him. And yet with it all Christ was not to gain all, yet still He died for all; so fulfilling His own part. But art thou aware that by meat thou art overthrowing him in the more important matters, and yet makest a disputing? And him who is the object of such care unto Christ, dost thou consider so contemptible, and dishonor one whom He loveth? Yet He died not for the weak only, but even for an enemy. And wilt not thou refrain from meats even, for him that is weak? Yet Christ did what was greatest even, but thou not even the less. And He was Master, thou a brother. These words then were enough to tongue-tie him. For they show him to be of a little spirit, and after having the benefit of great things from God, not to give in return even little ones.

Although Paul establishes the principle that nothing is unclean in itself, and he gives complete freedom to believers to eat whatever they like, nevertheless he proceeds to restrict that freedom for the sake of building up the freedom of brotherly love.

Paul did not say that a brother is distressed because of fasting but because of food; therefore you should not incite or constrain anyone by the example of what you eat. If your neighbor eats something which is not good for him against his will, you are no longer loving him as yourself if you are not thinking of his good as much as of your own.

For "if for the sake of meat our brother be made sad, or shocked, or made weak, or caused to stumble, we are not walking in the love of God. For the sake of meat you cause him to perish for whose sake Christ died." For, in "thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their sickly consciences, you sin against Christ Himself. For, if for the sake of meat my brother is made to stumble," let us who are believers say, "Never will we eat flesh, that we may not make our brother to stumble." [1 Corinthians 8:12-13] These things, moreover, does ever one who truly loves God, who truly takes up his cross, and puts on Christ, and loves his neighbour; the man who watches over himself that he be not a stumbling-block to any one, that no one be caused to stumble because of him and die because he is constantly with maidens and lives in the same house with them — a thing which is not right — to the overthrow of those who see and hear. Evil conduct like this is fraught with stumbling and peril, and is akin to death. But blessed is that man who is circumspect and fearful in everything for the sake of purity!

Here he turns his speech to the perfect one, teaching: even if foods were a thousandfold not unclean by nature, you still ought to have abstained from pork, so that your brother who is scandalized would not be grieved, if only you wish to preserve love. You, he says, by a dispute over food are ruining and corrupting a brother who is so precious in the eyes of Christ that He died for him. For that person, noticing that you eat pork in opposition to him, becomes more obstinate and therefore, fearing lest he fall away from Christ, ultimately attaches himself entirely to the law.

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.

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).

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).

Since God's teaching is good and salutary, it should not be blasphemed, because of something trivial. Yet it is blasphemed when doubts are cast on the goodness of God's creation.

For the supper is made for love, but the supper is not love; only a proof of mutual and reciprocal kindly feeling. "Let not, then, your good be evil spoken of; for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink," says the apostle, in order that the meal spoken of may not be conceived as ephemeral, "but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." He who eats of this meal, the best of all, shall possess the kingdom of God, fixing his regards here on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly Church.

By their "good," he means here either their faith, or the hope of rewards hereafter, or the perfectness of their religious state. For it is not only that you fail to profit your brother, he means, but the doctrine itself, and the grace of God, and His gift, you cause to be evil spoken of. Now when thou fightest, when thou quarrellest, when thou art vexatious, when thou makest schism in the Church, and reproachest thy brother, and art distant with him, those that are without will speak evil of you. And so good is so far from coming of this, that just the opposite is the case. For your good is charity, love of the brotherhood, being united, being bound together, living at peace, living in gentleness. He again, to put an end to his fears and the other's disputatiousness, says, "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." Is it by these, he means, that we are to be approved? As he says in another passage too, "Neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse." And he does not need any proof, but is content with stating it. And what he says is this, If thou eatest, does this lead thee to the Kingdom? And this was why, by way of satirizing them as mightily pleased with themselves herein, he said, not "meat" only, but "drink." What then are the things that do bring us here? "Righteousness, and peace, and joy," and a virtuous life, and peace with our brethren (whereto this quarrelsomeness is opposed), the joy from unanimity, which this rebuking puts an end to. But this he said not to one party only, but to both of them, it being a fit season for saying it to both. Then as he had mentioned peace and joy, but there is a peace and joy over bad actions also, he adds, "in the Holy Ghost." Since he that ruins his brother, hath at once subverted peace, and wronged joy, more grievously than he that plunders money. And what is worse is, that Another saved him, and thou wrongest and ruinest him. Since then eating, and the supposed perfect state, does not bring in these virtues, but the things subversive of them it does bring in, how can it be else than right to make light of little things, in order to give firmness to great ones? Then since this rebuking took place in some degree out of vanity, ...

Even if you are teaching correctly, your argument may become the cause of blasphemy.

How is it possible for what is good to us to be spoken of as evil? "What is good to us" refers here to the spiritual interpretation of the law, avoiding the ungodly and foolish teachings of the heretics and of those engaged in false philosophy concerning unclean and polluted food. This is what is enjoined by the spiritual law. But a Jew, for example, or one of the so-called Encratites might think that in order to believe in Christ it is necessary to practice celibacy or abstinence from certain types of food and might quote Scripture in support of this. If you then insist that in order for such a person to be saved or to come to Christ he must eat everything, including the food from which he abstains, the good element in the spiritual law is blasphemed, because he will think that eating such food is an essential part of our faith, when in fact it is a matter of indifference.

What is good is our freedom, which we have in the Lord, so that everything is clean to us. We should not use our freedom in such a way that we appear to be living for the stomach and for feasts.

Paul is saying that he praises their faith but does not want it to become the cause of cursing and damnation.

That is, you have perfection in faith (for he called it "good"). Therefore do not abuse your perfection and do not give occasion for it to be blasphemed. For if you, being perfect, destroy the imperfect one, then you have given occasion to blaspheme the good that you possess. But you understand that our teaching is also good, and that it does not wish to be subjected to blasphemy from unbelievers when they see divisions and stumbling blocks concerning food.

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.

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).

By "the kingdom of God" Paul means the church, in which God reigns.

Furthermore, the selfsame man cried aloud that "the kingdom of God does not consist in food and drink," not indeed in abstinence from wine and meat, "but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit." Which of them goes about like Elijah clad in a sheepskin and a leather girdle? Which of them goes about like Isaiah, naked except for a piece of sacking and without shoes? Or clothed merely in a linen loincloth like Jeremiah? Which of them will imitate John's gnostic way of life? The blessed prophets also lived in this manner and were thankful to the Creator.

He who eats of this meal, the best of all, shall possess the kingdom of God, fixing his regards here on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly Church. Love, then, is something pure and worthy of God, and its work is communication. "And the care of discipline is love," as Wisdom says; "and love is the keeping of the law."

That too great lust of food is not to be desired. In Isaiah: "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die." Also in Exodus: "And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want." . And again: "When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment." Also to the Romans: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." In the Gospel according to John: "I have meat which ye know not of. My meat is, that I should do His will who sent me, and should finish His work."

Just as there is no marriage in heaven, so there is no eating and drinking there either. All that will be over and done with and will have no place there. Rather there will be "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Therefore, Paul urges us to concentrate on those things and to realize that we already have their substance here below, which we shall take with us when we go to the heavenly kingdom. Peace and righteousness and whatever else we acquire from the Holy Spirit will be our food and drink in the kingdom of heaven.

We are not justified by food. But one should also note that Paul did not say that "fasting and temperance" are not the kingdom of God but rather food and drink. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are more easily maintained through abstinence, for where there is righteousness (by loving one's neighbor as oneself) there is also peace, and where there is peace there is also spiritual joy, because distress and trouble always arise out of discord.

For a defiled spirit cannot be acknowledged by a holy Spirit, nor a sad by a joyful, nor a lettered by a free.

And if he has "delivered you the keys of the meat-market," permitting the eating of "all things" with a view to establishing the exception of" things offered to idols; "still he has not included the kingdom of God in the meat-market: "For," he says, "the kingdom of God is neither meat nor drink; " and, "Food commendeth us not to God"-not that you may think this said about dry diet, but rather about rich and carefully prepared, if, when he subjoins, "Neither, if we shall have eaten, shall we abound; nor, if we shall not have eaten, shall we be deficient," the ring of his words suits, (as it does), you rather (than us), who think that you do "abound" if you eat, and are "deficient if you eat not; and for this reason disparage these observances.

We ought to laugh at those who think that after the resurrection we shall eat and drink, when Paul's words so clearly say the opposite.

Not by this do we earn favor with God. If, he says, you do not eat, will this really bring you into the Kingdom? Rebuking them for considering this important, he also mentioned drink. Into the Kingdom of God one is led by "righteousness," that is, all the virtues, a blameless life, and peace with one's brother rather than enmity, and "joy" that comes from harmony rather than sorrow that comes from reproach. Since peace and joy can also occur in evil deeds, he added: "in the Holy Spirit." My discourse, he says, is about peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The great Chrysostom profoundly explained why Paul mentioned righteousness. It was, he says, in order to show that the one who does not abstain from swine's flesh wrongs his brother with respect to the salvation that Christ acquired for him by His death. Therefore, conversely, the one who abstains for the sake of his brother preserves righteousness, which bestows the eternal Kingdom.

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.

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).

The man who is acceptable to God is approved by men. Why? Because he has accepted the gift through which he appears worthy in the sight of God.

For they will not admire thee so much for thy perfect state, as all will for peace and amity. For this is a goodly thing, that all will have the benefit of, but of that not one even will.

No one can doubt that a person like this is holy.

Here he hints that the mature were reproaching the weak out of vainglory. If you wish, he says, to become an object of admiration for people, then arouse their admiration for you not so much by your perfection as by peace and other virtues. It is precisely by these things that one should serve and please God, and not by the fact that you eat pork without discrimination.

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).