Romans 14

A man who is weak in his faith is to be accepted and not rejected. For it is one thing to be weak in faith but quite another to be an unbeliever altogether. An unbeliever has no faith at all, but one who is merely weak has doubts about certain aspects of the faith.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water." If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God.

Epistle LXXIII

As far as matters of indifference are concerned, Paul says that it does not matter whether we do them or not, but when it comes to loving our neighbor, they cease to be matters of indifference. Any regulation concerning food is a matter of indifference, because everything has been sanctified by the power of Christ. But not everyone is so strong in his faith that he is in no danger of being corrupted by these things. Whether we injure such a person or do not injure him is not to be regarded as a matter of indifference, but we are to take great care to ensure that no one loses his soul by eating something which he thinks it might be wrong to eat.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

As I mentioned in my prologue to the epistle, those who led the Romans to faith had mixed it up with the law because they were Jews, which is why some of them thought that they should not eat meat. But others, who followed Christ apart from the law, thought otherwise, that it was permissible to eat meat, and for this reason there were disputes among them. The apostle tried to solve these disputes by arguing that the person who abstained from eating gained no advantage in the sight of God, nor did the one who ate lose anything thereby. He says that the person who is afraid to eat because the Jews had forbidden it is weak. He wants this person to be left to his own judgment, so as not to be hurt and depart from that love which is a mother of souls.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

1–2

I Am aware that to most what is here said is a difficulty. And therefore I must first give the subject of the whole of this passage, and what he wishes to correct in writing this. What does he wish to correct then? There were many of the Jews which believed, who adhered of conscience to the Law, and after their believing, still kept to the observance of meats, as not having courage yet to quit the service of the Law entirely. Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine's flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law. Others again were farther advanced, and kept up no one thing of the kind, who became to those, who did keep them, distressing and offensive, by reproaching them, accusing them, driving them to despondency. Therefore the blessed Paul, out of fear lest, from a wish to be right about a trifle, they should overthrow the whole, and from a wish to bring them to indifferency about what they ate, should put them in a fair way for deserting the faith, and out of a zeal to put everything right at once, before the fit opportunity was come, should do mischief on vital points, so by this continual rebuking setting them adrift from their agreement in Christ, and so they should remain not righted in either respect: observe what great judgment he uses and how he concerns himself with both interests with his customary wisdom. For neither does he venture to say to those who rebuke, Ye are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, Ye are doing right, lest he should make them the more vehement accusers: but he makes his rebuke to square with each. And in appearance he is rebuking the stronger, but he pours forth all he has to say against the other in his address to these. For the kind of correction most likely to be less grating is, when a person addresses some one else, while he is striking a blow at a different person, since this does not permit the person rebuked to fly into a passion, and introduces the medicine of correction unperceived. See now with what judgment he does this, and how well-timed he is with it. For after saying, "make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof," then he proceeds to the discussion of these points, that he might not seem to be speaking in defence of those who were the rebukers, and were for eating of anything. For the weaker part ever requires more forethought. Wherefore he aims his blow against the strong, immediately saying as follows, "Him that is weak in the faith." You see one blow immediately given to him. For by calling him weak, he points out that he is not healthy. Then he adds next, "receive," and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. "Not to doubtful disputations." See, he has laid on a third stroke. For here he makes it appear that his error is of such a nature, that even those who do not transgress in the same manner, and who nevertheless admit him to their affection, and are earnestly bent upon curing him, are at doubt. You see how in appearance he is conversing with these, but is rebuking others secretly and without giving offence. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, "One believeth that he may eat all things," commending him on the score of his faith. "Another who is weak, eateth herbs," disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness.

Homily on Romans 25

From here on Paul indirectly begins to upbraid those who thought they were strong and who therefore ate meat without restraint. Paul tells them not to judge others according to their opinions when the law does not judge them.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul says that we should receive the weak man in order that we might support his weakness by our strength. Neither should we criticize his opinions by daring to pass judgment on someone else’s heart, which we do not see.

On Romans 78

The weak were those who continued to observe the law.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

Who would be so inhumane as to lay aside any sympathy for the weak and trample on them, not even offering them the help they need in adversity? Paul makes this an absolute command and accompanies it with the teaching that the law and all the behavior it entailed has been abolished in Christ. Yet he was conscious that the ethnic heritage weighed more heavily on the Jew, who felt that he would be sinning against his brothers if he went against the law.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Many of the Jews who had believed, even after their conversion, observed distinctions in foods, abstained from pork, and did not dare to depart entirely from the law. Then, lest they be exposed as abstaining from pork alone, they abstained from all meat in general and ate only vegetables. Others were more mature, observed nothing of the sort, and were reproached by those who did observe such things. Paul feared that the mature, by rebuking the immature untimely and improperly, might turn them away from the faith of Christ. Therefore he approaches the matter wisely, caring for the benefit of the other side as well. He did not venture to say to those who reproached: you do wrong — lest he confirm the immature in their observance of rituals. Nor did he venture to say to the rebukers: you do well — lest he make them more aggressive in their attacks. On the contrary, he offers an exhortation adapted to both sides. His rebuke is directed, it would seem, more against the stronger side, but in reality its full force falls upon the weaker. For immediately by the expression "the weak" he showed the sickness of such people. And when he says "receive," he indicates the need for great care toward them, which is itself a sign of their extreme weakness. "Without disputes over opinions." That is, do not condemn him for his weakness, do not take offense, do not be troubled by many thoughts, but by all means endeavor to heal him as one who is weak.

Commentary on Romans

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.

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).

Commentary on Romans

"Now the weak eateth herbs," according to the noble apostle.

The Stromata Book 6

Given that the law of Moses says nothing about eating vegetables, it is clear that the apostle has a deeper meaning in view here. What he is really talking about is the food of the Word of God. The man who is weak in faith is one who cannot fully accept what the Word of God teaches. Compare what the apostle says elsewhere: “Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” … Thus the man who believes that he can eat anything is not stuffing himself with food … but is showing himself able to understand the secret things of the Spirit, which because of his faith he believes he can eat through grace.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

The faithful reader of Scripture will not doubt that everything which is given for human use is fit to be eaten, for it says in Genesis that everything which God created is good. Therefore nothing is to be rejected, for neither Enoch, who was the first to please God, nor Noah, who alone was found righteous at the time of the flood, nor Abraham, who was the friend of God, nor Isaac nor Jacob, both righteous men and friends of God, nor even Lot, nor any other righteous men are said to have abstained from these things.If someone thinks it right to be a vegetarian he is not to be persuaded to eat meat, because if he ignores his own principles and eats with reluctance he will appear to be sinning.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Some people have a faith so strong that it is not disturbed. Some are worn out by abstinence, or else they are elderly. Others are weak because of their youth or the lusts of the flesh. Paul is not speaking here of the Jews, as some suppose, but of those who abstain, for the Jews do not eat meats even if they are clean according to the law, but only vegetables.Another possible interpretation is this: If you become fainthearted because you know another person who has decided to eat only vegetables and you hesitate to eat meat because of his faith, do not judge the other man’s decision or ask him what has been left to individual discretion. But if you take offense and do not want to eat meat, set a limit for yourself and do the better thing—eat only vegetables—so that everyone may be stirred to abstinence by your agreeableness in this matter rather than be annoyed and offended and thereby merely strengthened in their resolve to go on eating meat. For you cannot condemn someone if he is acting in faith or does it because of his health or old age.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

At that time many people who were strong in their faith and who knew the Lord’s teaching, that it is what comes out of the mouth which defiles a man, not what goes into it, were eating whatever they liked with a clear conscience. But some weaker ones abstained from meat and wine, so as to avoid unknowingly eating foods which had been sacrificed to idols. At that time the Gentiles sold all sacrificed meat in the butcher shops, poured out the first fruits of the wine as a libation to their idols and even made some offerings in the wine presses.

On Romans 78

Those who would eat anything were obviously Gentiles. Some people say that converted Jews shamed these Gentiles not only into abstaining from meat which had been sacrificed to idols but from any kind of meat whatever.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

He makes a comparison between the perfect and the imperfect and says that the perfect, being bold in faith, eats everything without distinction, while the imperfect, being weak, eats vegetables. Therefore the latter deserves healing, not defeat.

Commentary on Romans

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Commentary on Romans

We are not, then, to abstain wholly from various kinds of food, but only are not to be taken up about them. We are to partake of what is set before us, as becomes a Christian, out of respect to him who has invited us, by a harmless and moderate participation in the social meeting; regarding the sumptuousness of what is put on the table as a matter of indifference, despising the dainties, as after a little destined to perish. "Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth."

The Instructor Book 2

Paul wants harmony to prevail in the church between those who are more mature and those who are less.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

What we eat or do not eat is a matter of personal choice and therefore it should not become a matter for argument.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not."

He does not say, let him alone, nor does he say, do not blame him, nor yet, do not set him right; but do not reproach him, do not "despise" him, to show they were doing a thing perfectly ridiculous. But of this he speaks in other words. "Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth." For as the more advanced made light of these, as of little faith, and falsely healed, and spurious, and still Judaizers, so they too judged these as law-breakers, or as given to gluttony. And of these it is likely that many were of the Gentiles too. Wherefore he proceeds, for God hath received him. But in the other's case he does not say this. And yet to be despised was the eater's share, as a glutton, but to be judged, his that did not eat, as of little faith. But he has made them change places, to show that he not only does not deserve to be despised, but that he can even despise. But do I condemn him? he means. By no means. For this is why he proceeds, "for God hath received him." Why then speakest thou to him of the law, as to a transgressor? "For God hath received him:" that is, has shown His unspeakable grace about him, and hath freed him from all charges against him; then again he turns to the strong.

Homily on Romans 25

These people took offense at each other. Those who did not eat judged those who ate as carnal, and those who ate ridiculed those who did not eat as fools and considered them to be superstitious. But God called the one, just as he called the other.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

The apostle instructed those who ate such food with a clear conscience not to despise the weakness of those who abstained.… And he told the weak not to condemn as polluted those who consumed such meat and wine.… For the strong insisted on despising the weak, and the weak did not hesitate to condemn the strong.

On Romans 78

Paul wanted to keep the balance, by which scandals are avoided, between those who fast on Saturday and those who do not, so that the one who eats would not despise the one who does not eat, and the one who fasts would not judge the one who eats.

Letter 36

Those who ate everything, being perfect, looked down on those who did not eat, as people of little faith still attached to Judaism. On the other hand, those who did not eat condemned those who ate everything as lacking self-control. Since among them many were from the Gentiles, he says: "God has accepted him," that is, He showed him His ineffable grace. Why then do you argue with him about the law, when Christ has justified him?

Commentary on Romans

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).

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.

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.

Commentary on Romans

Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons — marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.

Mere Christianity, Book 3, Chapter 2: The Cardinal Virtues

For `to his own lord a man standeth or falleth; who art thou, to judge another's servant? ' `Remit, and remission shall be made to thee.

On Modesty

The impostor Callistus, having ventured on such opinions, established a school of theology in antagonism to the Church, adopting the foregoing system of instruction. And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard of their indulgence in sensual pleasures, saying that all had their sins forgiven by himself. For he who is in the habit of attending the congregation of any one else, and is called a Christian, should he commit any transgression; the sin, they say, is not reckoned unto him, provided only he hurries off and attaches himself to the school of Callistus. And many persons were gratified with his regulation, as being stricken in conscience, and at the same time having been rejected by numerous sects; while also some of them, in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us forcibly ejected from the Church. Now such disciples as these passed over to these followers of Callistus, and served to crowd his school. This one propounded the opinion, that, if a bishop was guilty of any sin, if even a sin unto death, he ought not to be deposed. About the time of this man, bishops, priests, and deacons, who had been twice married, and thrice married, began to be allowed to retain their place among the clergy. If also, however, any one who is in holy orders should become married, Callistus permitted such a one to continue in holy orders as if he had not sinned. And in justification, he alleges that what has been spoken by the Apostle has been declared in reference to this person: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? " But he asserted that likewise the parable of the tares is uttered in reference to this one: "Let the tares grow along with the wheat; " or, in other words, let those who in the Church are guilty of sin remain in it. But also he affirmed that the ark of Noe was made for a symbol of the Church, in which were both dogs, and wolves, and ravens, and all things clean and unclean; and so he alleges that the case should stand in like manner with the Church. And as many parts of Scripture bearing on this view of the subject as he could collect, be so interpreted.

Refutation of All Heresies Book 9

Moreover, we do not prejudge when the Lord is to be the judge; save that if He shall find the repentance of the sinners full and sound, He will then ratify what shall have been here determined by us. If, however, any one should delude us with the pretence of repentance, God, who is not mocked, and who looks into man's heart, will judge of those things which we have imperfectly looked into, and the Lord will amend the sentence of His servants; while yet, dearest brother, we ought to remember that it is written, "A brother that helpeth a brother shall be exalted; " and that the apostle also has said, "Let all of you severally have regard to yourselves, lest ye also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ; " also that, rebuking the haughty, and breaking down their arrogance, he says in his epistle, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall; " and in another place he says, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall stand, for God is able to make him stand." John also proves that Jesus Christ the Lord is our Advocate and Intercessor for our sins, saying, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Supporter: and He is the propitiation for our sins." And Paul also, the apostle, in his epistle, has written, "If, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; much more, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him."

Epistle LI

That we must not rashly judge of another. In the Gospel according to Luke: "Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned." Of this same subject to the Romans: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand." And again: "Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God" Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.: "And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." And again: "If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet in what manner he ought to know."

Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

The servant is not guilty whether he eats or not, as long as he does what he does in a spirit of devotion.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

A servant of Christ is anyone whom Christ has accepted. He is then no longer under the law. Who are you, therefore, to judge someone by the law when he is a stranger to it?

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?"

Whence it appears that they too judged, and did not despise only. "To his own Master he standeth or falleth." See here is another stroke. And the indignation seems to be against the strong man, and he attacks him. When he says, "Yea, he shall be holden up," he shows that he is still wavering, and requireth so much attention as to call in God as a physician for this, "for God," he says, "is able to make him stand." And this we say of things we are quite in despair about. Then, that he may not despair he both gives him the name of a servant when he says, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" And here again he secretly attacks him. For it is not because he does things worthy to exempt him from being judged, that I bid you not judge him, but because he is Another's servant, that is, not thine, but God's. Then to solace him again he does not say, "falleth," but what? "standeth or falleth." But whether it be the latter or the former, either of these is the Master's concernment, since the loss also goes to Him, if he does fall, as the riches too, if he stand. And this again if we do not attend to Paul's aim in not wishing them to be rebuked before a fitting opportunity, is very unworthy of the mutual care becoming for Christians. But (as I am always saying) we must examine the mind with which it is spoken, and the subject on which it is said and the object he would compass when he says it. But he makes them respectful by no slight motive, when he says this: for what he means is, if God, Who undergoeth the loss, hitherto doth nothing, how can you be else than ill-timed and out of all measure exact, when you seize on him and annoy him?

Homily on Romans 25

What authority do you have to judge someone whom the law does not judge? This is why James says: “He who judges his brother judges the Law”; in other words, he judges himself to be wiser than the law. Nevertheless, Paul himself judged those who broke the commandments and gave others the power to judge. A man either lives or dies according to his own master.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

Paul says this so that, when something might be done with either good or bad motives, we should leave the judgment to God and not presume to judge the heart of someone else, which we do not see. But when it comes to things which obviously could not have been done with good and innocent intentions, it is not wrong if we pass judgment. So in the matter of food, where it is not known what the motive in eating it is, Paul does not want us to be judges, but God. But in the case of that abominable immorality where a man had taken his stepmother, Paul taught us to judge. For that man could not possibly claim that he committed such a gross act of indecency with good intentions. So we must pass judgment on things which are obviously wrong.

On Romans 79

These men were of a mind to pass judgment with regard to things which may indeed be done with a bad intention but which may also be done with an upright, simple and magnanimous motive. Although they were men, they wanted to judge the secrets of the heart—secrets of which God alone is the judge.

Sermon on the Mount 2.18.59

He says this to the perfect one, dissuading him both from contempt and from judgment, for the perfect ones, doing both, both despised and judged the imperfect. However, in a hidden manner the rebuke falls here also upon the imperfect. I do not forbid you to judge, he says, because the conduct of the other does not deserve judgment, but because he is another's servant, that is, not yours, but God's. For although he is weak, he has not ceased to be a servant; wherefore one must not despair concerning him. And encouraging the weak one, he did not say "falls," but "stands or falls." Whether one or the other happens to him, it belongs to the Lord to judge both concerning the loss of the one who falls and the gain of the one who stands. By the words "he will be raised up" he shows that he is so shaken and has fallen so far that only God can raise him up. We say this about people who are utterly hopeless.

Commentary on Romans

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

Commentary on Romans

What pleased me most about a Greek Orthodox mass I once attended was that there seemed to be no prescribed behaviour for the congregation. Some stood, some knelt, some sat, some walked; one crawled about the floor like a caterpillar. And the beauty of it was that nobody took the slightest notice of what anyone else was doing. I wish we Anglicans would follow their example. One meets people who are perturbed because someone in the next pew does, or does not, cross himself. They oughtn't even to have seen, let alone censured. "Who art thou that judgest Another's servant?"

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Letter 2

According to the spiritual interpretation, which we have already expounded in the case of food, the word day is used to mean a portion of holy Scripture in which the doctrine of godliness and faith is contained. For it is the day which enlightens the mind, which drives away the darkness of ignorance. The day has Christ, the sun of righteousness, in it. If one person dedicates himself to the study of holy Scripture and discovers the true meaning of every day, so that not one jot or tittle of the law escapes him, then it can be said that he “esteems all days alike.” Another person may not have reached that point but still has enough to be able to understand the basic tenets of the faith. Therefore both are to give thanks to God, according to the apostle’s teaching. One understands and enjoys everything, whereas another does not understand everything but will nevertheless be saved by confessing the little that he does know.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

"One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike."

Here he seems to me to be giving a gentle hint about fasting. For it is not unlikely that some who fasted were always judging those who did not, or among the observances it is likely that there were some that on fixed days abstained, and on fixed days did not. Whence also he says, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." And in this way he released those who kept the observances from fear, by saying that the thing was indifferent, and he removed also the quarrelsomeness of those who attacked them, by showing that it was no very desirable task to be always making a trouble about these things. Yet it was not a very desirable task, not in its own nature, but on account of the time chosen, and because they were novices in the faith. For when he is writing to the Colossians, it is with great earnestness that he forbids it, saying, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. ii. 8.) And again, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink" (Col. ii. 16), and, "let no man beguile you of your reward." (Col. ii. 18.) And when writing to the Galatians with great precision, he exacts of them Christian spirit and perfectness in this matter. But here he does not use this vehemency, because the faith was lately planted in them. Let us therefore not apply the phrase, "Let every man be persuaded in his own mind," to all subjects. For when he is speaking of doctrines, hear what he says, "If any one preacheth unto you any gospel other than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 9), "even" if it be "an angel." And again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi. 3.) And in writing to the Philippians, he says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (Phil. iii. 2.) But with the Romans, since it was not yet the proper time for setting things of this sort right, "Let every man," he says, "be fully persuaded in his own mind." For he had been speaking of fasting.

Homily on Romans 25

Therefore Paul is speaking here about fasting and abstinence, which are not treated under a fixed provision of the law. Each individual should do whatever he sees fit in the light of his desire to share in the reward. Thus it follows that in a matter of this kind one should simply do what he himself has judged to be better.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

At the moment, and without any deeper consideration, it seems to me that this is said about God and man, not about two men. He who judges on alternate days is man, who can judge one way today and another way tomorrow.… But the One whose judgment is the same every day is the Lord.… But let everyone dare to judge only insofar as is granted to human intelligence or at least to his own.

On Romans 80

This is not to be made an article of faith, as Paul himself says.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Some exhausted themselves by not eating or abstained from pork on certain days, while others always ate food and condemned those who fasted. About these he says that one judges one way and another differently, whereas the matter here is indifferent. Therefore one must not attack the brethren on account of this. In this he makes allowance for those being rebuked, because they were still new in the faith. When it comes to dogmas, we must not act according to the assurance of our own mind, but must firmly hold to what we have received, even if an angel from heaven should preach to us something different. But here the subject is food and fasts and the like, and those who stumble over these things are still new in the faith and in need of condescension, and therefore it was necessary to grant them some relaxation with regard to a life ordered in all strictness.

Commentary on Romans

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).

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.

Commentary on Romans

"Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth." And a little way on he explains the reason of the command, when he says, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, and giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." So that the right food is thanksgiving. And he who gives thanks does not occupy his time in pleasures.

The Instructor Book 2

"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." And, "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks."

He still keeps to the same subject. And what he means is about this. The thing is not concerned with fundamentals. For the thing requisite is, if this person and the other are acting for God's sake, the thing requisite is, if both terminate in thanksgiving. For indeed both this one and that give thanks to God. If then both do give thanks to God, the difference is no great one. But let me draw your notice to the way in which here also he aims unawares a blow at the Judaizers. For if the thing required be this, the "giving of thanks," it is plain enough that he which eateth it is that "giveth thanks," and not "he which eateth not." For how should he, while he still holds to the Law? As then he told the Galatians, "As many of you as are justified by the Law are fallen from grace" (Gal. v. 4); so here he hints it only, but does not unfold it so much. For as yet it was not time to do so. But for the present he bears with it: but by what follows he gives it a further opening. For where he says,

Homily on Romans 25

The man who fasts for God’s sake and not on account of other people observes the day for the Lord. He eats for God’s sake so that he may have strength to preach the gospel, for which every convert should thank God. This man is not devoted to his own stomach but to the salvation of others.But it is also true that by the example of the one who does not eat meat many are saved and return thanks to God. For one who gives thanks with the voice gives thanks alone, but one who gives thanks in deed as well as voice gives thanks with many others.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

When someone observes the day well, he keeps the day for the Lord. To judge the day well means you are not to despair over the future correction of the person whose guilt might appear now to be clean.

On Romans

He who, he says, distinguishes days, distinguishes them for the Lord, as one who is reverent; and he who does not distinguish days, does not distinguish them for the Lord, as one who is already perfect in Christ and has risen above the observances of the Law. We ask about one thing only, he says: whether they do this for Christ's sake, and whether the one who eats and the one who does not eat give thanks to God? For what is done in this way is not subject to accusation and slander. He says this, as I said, because the Romans were still new in the faith. But in a hidden way he also strikes a blow against those who hold to Judaism. How can one who still holds to the law give thanks? Therefore, only the one who eats gives thanks.

Commentary on Romans

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.

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.

Commentary on Romans

We must not please ourselves but rather assume the example of Christ, who alone died to sin, so that by imitating him we too might become strangers to sin and die to it. We do not have this example of living in ourselves, but we get it from Christ.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

A man would be living for himself if he did not act according to the law. But whoever is controlled by the brake of the law is not living for himself but for God, who gave the law so that it might be possible to live according to his will. Likewise, whoever dies dies to God, for he is the Judge who will either condemn or reward him.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

7–8

"For none of us liveth unto himself, and no man dieth unto himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord," by this too he makes the same clearer. For how can he that liveth unto the Law, be living unto Christ? But this is not the only thing that he effects by this, he also holds back the person who was in so much haste for their being set right, and persuades him to be patient, by showing that it is impossible for God to despise them, but that in due time He will set them right. What is the force then of "none of us liveth to himself?" It means, We are not free, we have a Master who also would have us live, and willeth not that we die, and to whom both of these are of more interest than to us. For by what is here said he shows that he hath a greater concern for us than we have ourselves, and considereth more than we do, as well our life to be wealth, as our death to be a loss. For we do not die to ourselves alone, but to our Master also, if we do die. But by death here he means that from the faith. However, this were enough to convince us that He taketh care for us, in that it is to Him we live, and to Him we die. Still he is not satisfied with saying this, but proceeds further. For after saying, "Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's," and passing from that death to the physical one, that he may not give an appearance of harshness to his language, he gives another very great indication of His care for us. Now of what kind is this?

Homily on Romans 25

No believer lives for himself or dies for himself, because “Christ has died for all, so that those who live no longer live for themselves but for him.”

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

7–8

We have, he says, a Lord Who cares for us and Who considers our life a gain and our death a loss. For we live or die not for ourselves alone, but also for the Lord. By life he means here the life in faith, and by death the falling away from faith. Therefore the Lord will by no means allow us to die in faith, or those who seem weak to fall away from it.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

Here “death” refers to the death which we die when we are buried with Christ in baptism, and “life” is the life we live in Christ, having died to sin and become strangers to this world.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Therefore, we must take care that we do not live for ourselves in eating or die on account of others in fasting.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

If we live, it is Christ’s life that we live; if we die, we die with him, under his custody.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

From death by faith he passes to natural death; for he now discusses this. Whether we live, he says, the natural life, we are the Lord's; whether we die a natural death, we likewise belong to the Lord.

Commentary on Romans

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).

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).

Commentary on Romans

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."

Against Heresies Book 3

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.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

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"

From the Discourse on the Resurrection

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.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

"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, he relaxes again, and says,

Homily on Romans 25

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

"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."

Homily on Romans 25

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

“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.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

Paul addresses these words to the Jews.

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

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

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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?

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

11–12

"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, he again keeps to the same subject, and says,

Homily on Romans 25

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

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

11–12

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?

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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.

Epistle to the Philippians 6

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."

Epistle LXXV

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

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.’

The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

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.).

Commentary on Romans

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.

To His Wife Book 2

"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.

Homily on Romans 25

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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.’

The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

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.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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?

God in the Dock: The Holy Name

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.

Jewish Foods 5.6

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

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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.

Homily on Romans 26

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Explanation of the Letter to the Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

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

The Morals 5.3

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.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

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!

Two Epistles on Virginity

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.

Homily on Romans 26

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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.

The Instructor Book 2

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.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

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.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

16–17

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, he proceeds to say,

Homily on Romans 26

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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

Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans

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

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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.

The Stromata Book 3

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."

The Instructor Book 2

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

On Prayer

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.

On Fasting

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.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

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."

Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

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.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

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

Letter 36

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.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

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.

Homily on Romans 26

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

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

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).

Commentary on Romans

Since disapproval leads to discord, Paul teaches us to be peaceful and to avoid arguments over eating or not eating. Instead, he encourages us to follow the way of upbuilding.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

This applies to the other, that he may grow peaceable. But the other to the latter too, that he may not destroy his brother. Still he has made both apply to either again, by saying, "one another," and showing that without peace it is not easy to edify.

Homily on Romans 26

Let us not judge one another in matters of this kind. Abstinence is edification; food, on the other hand, even if it does not ruin anybody, edifies no one.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

He said "of peace" to the imperfect one, because that one did not have peace, and "for mutual edification" he said to the perfect one, so that he would not unsettle his brother by scandalizing him. However, by saying "mutual," he directed his word about this to both the one and the other. Moreover, by mentioning peace first and then edification, he showed that without peace it is difficult to edify.

Commentary on Romans

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.

Commentary on Romans

"It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul. If one partakes of them, he does not sin. Only let him partake temperately, not dependent on them, nor gaping after fine fare. For a voice will whisper to him, saying, "Destroy not the work of God for the sake of food."

The Instructor Book 2

For it is the mark of a silly mind to be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets, after the rich fare which is in the Word; and much sillier to make one's eyes the slaves of the delicacies, so that one's greed is, so to speak, carried round by the servants.

The Instructor Book 2

But further: when writing to the Romans, the apostle now gives you a home-thrust, detractors as you are of this observance: "Do not for the sake of food," he says, "undo the work of God.

On Fasting

Cleanliness and uncleanness inhere not in the things themselves but rather in the minds and thoughts of those who use them.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Man is the work of God by creation, and again by his renewal in regeneration, and food is God’s work as well. But man was not made for food; food was made for man, which is very different!

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Giving this name to the salvation of a brother, and adding greatly to the fears, and showing that he is doing the opposite of that he desires. For thou, he says, art so far from building up as thou intendest, that thou dost even destroy, and that a building too not of man but of God, and not for any great end either, but for a trivial thing. For it was "for meat," he says. Then lest so many indulgences should confirm the weaker brother in his misconception, he again becomes doctrinal, as follows, "All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence." Who does it, that is, with a bad conscience. And so if you should force him, and he should eat, there would be nothing gained. For it is not the eating that maketh unclean, but the intention with which a man eats. If then thou dost not set that aright, thou hast done all to no purpose, and hast made things worse: for thinking a thing unclean is not so bad as tasting it when one thinks it unclean. Here then you are committing two errors, one by increasing his prejudice through your quarrelsomeness, and another by getting him to taste of what is unclean. And so, as long as you do not persuade him, do not force him.

Homily on Romans 26

The “work of God” means “a human being, created by God.” Paul repeats what he said above [in verse 14], lest it appear that he is condemning creation. What is clean in itself becomes wrong if someone else takes offense on his account.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

God did his work on the cross, but now you are destroying it.

Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church

He calls the salvation of a brother the work of God. Therefore, do not destroy that which was acquired for him by God, and moreover for the sake of food, that is, by an unwillingness to abstain from pork, in order to gain benefit for yourself. Having made a strict prohibition to the perfect one, he feared lest the weak one be confirmed in evil thoughts. Therefore he again turns to the doctrine and says that all things are clean, but it is bad for the one who eats with a bad conscience and after having been scandalized. For the imperfect one, who considers pork unclean, if he eats it under compulsion, suffers greater harm. Therefore you must first teach him that all things are clean.

Commentary on Romans

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.

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.

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).

Commentary on Romans

"It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine," as both he and the Pythagoreans acknowledge. For this is rather characteristic of a beast; and the fumes arising from them being dense, darken the soul.

The Instructor Book 2

Eating meat and drinking wine are matters of indifference in themselves. Even wicked people may abstain from these things, and some idol worshipers in fact do so, for reasons which are actually evil. Likewise quite a few heretics enjoin similar practices. The only reason abstinence of this kind is good is that it may help to avoid offending a brother.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

Although the issue involves only meat, Paul adds drink here as well, in order to nurture those who abstain from both of these things, so that they will not be hurt by those who eat and drink, on the ground that it is lawful to do so. Paul gives them peace of mind by telling them to make their own decision and putting an end to the disagreement through which the dispute had arisen. No one will dispute that either option is legitimate in itself. For the creation was given for voluntary use. There is no necessity imposed on anybody, one way or the other.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Again, he requires the greater alternative, that they should not only not force him, but even condescend to him. For he often did this himself also, as when he circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), when he was shorn (ib. xviii. 18), when he sacrificed that Jewish sacrifice. (ib. xxi. 26). And he does not say to the man "do so," but he states it in the form of a sentiment to prevent again making the other, the weaker man, too listless. And what are his words? "It is good not to eat flesh." And why do I say flesh? if it be wine, or any other thing of the sort besides, which gives offence, refrain. For nothing is so important as thy brother's salvation. And this Christ shows us, since He came from Heaven, and suffered all that He went through, for our sakes. And let me beg you to observe, how he also drives it home upon the other, by the words "stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." And do not tell me (he means) that he is so without reason but, that thou hast power to set it right. For the other has a sufficient claim to be helped in his weakness, and to thee this were no loss, not being a case of hypocrisy (Gal. ii. 13), but of edification and economy. For if thou force him, he is at once destroyed, and will condemn thee, and fortify himself the more in not eating. But if thou condescend to him, then he will love thee, and will not suspect thee as a teacher, and thou wilt afterwards gain the power of sowing imperceptibly in him the right views. But if he once hate thee, then thou hast closed the entrance for thy reasoning. Do not then compel him, but even thyself refrain for his sake, not refraining from it as unclean, but because he is offended, and he will love thee the more. So Paul also advises when he says, "It is good not to eat flesh," not because it was unclean, but because the brother is offended and is weak.

Homily on Romans 26

You, he says, compel your brother to eat what he does not dare to eat, but I say that you must abstain from everything that causes your brother to stumble, not because it is evil (for all things are clean), but because it causes stumbling. By the word "stumbles" he showed that he is blinded, for the blind stumble. And he "is offended" as one who is fickle, and "is made weak" as one of little faith. By all this he draws the stronger one to help his brother, as one who is utterly infirm.

Commentary on Romans

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).

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.

Commentary on Romans

This person should keep his faith to himself and not try to impose it on others.… It is reward enough to have God’s approval.There are many people who start off with good intentions, e.g., they decide they are going to live a celibate life, but in the course of time, either by negligence or desire, what they originally decided to do gets spoiled and corrupted. He is an unhappy person, therefore, who pronounces himself defeated in what he has tried to do, for he judges and condemns himself. A happy person is one who perseveres and thus has no reason to judge or to reprove himself for what he does.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

This means that if you are happy to eat because you know that everything God made is good, there is no need to judge anyone else. Rather, you should be at peace with your brother, for this is what God wants.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Here he seems to me to be giving a gentle warning to the more advanced on the score of vanity. And what he says is this, Dost thou wish to show me that thou art perfect, and fully furnished? Do not show it to me, but let thy conscience suffice. And by faith, he here means that concerned not with doctrines, but with the subject in hand. For of the former it says, "With the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. x. 10); and, "Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny." (Luke ix. 26.) For the former by not being confessed, ruins us; and so does this by being confessed unseasonably. "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth." Again he strikes at the weaker one, and gives him (i.e. the stronger) a sufficient crown, in that of his conscience. Even if no man see, that is, thou art able to be happy in thyself. For after saying, "Have it to thyself," to prevent his thinking this a contemptible tribunal, he tells him this is better to thee than the world. And if all accuse thee, and thou condemn not thyself, and thy conscience lay no charge against thee, thou art happy. But this is a statement he did not make to apply to any person whatever. For there are many that condemn not themselves, and yet are great transgressors: and these are the most miserable of men. But he still keeps to the subject in hand.

Homily on Romans 26

If you consider yourself faithful in this matter, eat in such a way that nobody is weakened by your example. The man who, in demonstrating his own strength, does not think of himself but of the salvation of the weak, is truly blessed.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

This should be read in connection with [verse 16] above.… Let us make good use of what we have, lest we sin against our brothers by creating a stumbling block for the weaker ones. For when we offend the weak we condemn ourselves by the very good by which we approve ourselves when this faith pleases us.

On Romans 81

Here he secretly hints that the mature one was displaying his maturity out of vainglory. He says: you want to show me that you are mature in faith regarding food, believing that everything is good and clean? Do not show me, but be content with the testimony of conscience before God, to Whom you show this. Even if no one else sees your blessedness, be content with yourself, if you yourself do not condemn yourself and your conscience does not condemn you in a matter that you have approved or chosen. Understand this only concerning the present subject, that is, concerning food.

Commentary on Romans

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.

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.

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).

Commentary on Romans

As to those who are overtaken by an involuntary flux in the night-time, let such follow the testimony of their own conscience, and consider themselves as to whether they are doubtfully minded in this matter or not. And he that doubteth in the matter of meats, the apostle tells us, "is damned if he eat." In these things, therefore, let every one who approaches God be of a good conscience, and of a proper confidence, so far as his own judgment is concerned.

Containing Various Sections of the Works - Canon IV

If “all that is not of faith is sin, and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God,” then everything outside holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin.

The Morals 80.22

It is true that if someone thinks it wrong to eat but does so anyway, he is condemned. For he makes himself guilty when he does what he thinks he ought not to.If someone acts against his better judgment in a matter of conscience, then Paul says that it is a sin.

Commentary on Paul’s Epistles

Every word or deed or thought which does not look to Christ looks completely to the adversary of Christ. For it is not possible for what is outside of light or life not to be completely in darkness or death.… The person outside of Christ rejects him by what he thinks, does or says.

On Perfection

Again, it is to exhort him to spare the weaker, that he says this. For what good is it if he eat in doubt, and condemn himself? For I approve of him, who both eateth, and doeth it not with doubting. See how he induces him not to eating only, but to eating with a good conscience too. Then he mentions likewise the reason why he is condemned continuing in these words, "Because he eateth not of faith." Not because it is unclean, but because it is not of faith. For he did not believe that it is clean, but though unclean he touched it. But by this he shows them also what great harm they do by compelling men, and not persuading them, to touch things which had hitherto appeared unclean to them, that for this at all events they might leave rebuking. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin." For when a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the subject in hand, not of everything. And observe what care he takes not to offend any; and he had said before, "If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably." But if one should not grieve him, much less ought one to give him offence. And again, "For meat destroy not the work of God." For if it were a grievous act of iniquity to throw down a Church, much more so is it to do so to the spiritual Temple. Since a man is more dignified than a Church: for it was not for walls that Christ died, but for these temples.

Homily on Romans 26

Whatever destroys another is not of faith and is therefore sin.

Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans

He who doubts, he says, and eats without being convinced, is condemned. Why? Not because the food was unclean, but because he was not sure that it was clean, and thought that he was touching it as something unclean. He who is not convinced and does not believe that the food is clean, but eats it with a guilty conscience, certainly sins.

Commentary on Romans

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).

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).

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).

Commentary on Romans