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.
All Commentaries on Romans 14:13 Go To Romans 14
Thomas Aquinas
AD 1274
1115. After forbidding human judgments [n. 1081], the Apostle now forbids putting stumbling blocks before one’s neighbor. First, he presents his proposition; secondly, he clarifies it [v. 15; n. 1122]. 1116. 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. And this is what he says: but rather decide never to put a hindrance or scandal in the way of a brother. A scandal, as Jerome says in 549 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 righteousness: "Take the hindrance out of my people’s path" (Is 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" (Mt 18:7). 1117. Secondly, 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 without distinction – this of itself was lawful. Hence he says: I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in 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." 550 The Apostle says that nothing is unclean, because he knows that it is so according to the nature of things, as he says in I Tim (4:4): Everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with thanksgiving." Secondly, 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" (Ac 10:15). 1118. Thirdly, 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 unclean; but it must be understood that if one has an erroneous conscience and thinks that some food is unclean, then for him it is unclean 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" (*** 1:15). 1119. So it is clear that something licit in itself becomes illicit for one who does it against his conscience, even though his conscience is erroneous. It is reasonable that this be so, for acts are judged according to the will of the performer. But the will is moved by the thing apprehended. Hence the will tends toward what the apprehensive power represents to it, and it is according to this that the action is qualified or specified. Therefore, if a person’s reason judges that something is sinful and the will is drawn to it as something to be done, it is clear that the person has a will to commit a sin. For this reason his external action, which is informed from the will, is a sin. For the same reason, 551 if one thinks that something venially sinful is a mortal sin, if he does it while his conscience is in that state, it is clear that he has chosen to sin mortally; consequently, his action is a mortal sin on account of his choice. But if someone afterwards has an erroneous conscience through which he believes that something lawful he did was a sin, or something venial was mortal, it is not on that account a sin or mortal, because the will and the action are not informed by a succeeding apprehension but by the one preceding the will and the action. 1120. There is no doubt about what we have said, but there can be doubt whether if someone has an erroneous conscience whereby he believes that something which is a mortal sin is necessary for salvation; for example, if he thinks that he is sinning mortally, unless he steals or fornicates, should such a conscience bind him, so that if he acted against it, he would sin mortally. It would seem that he would not be bound. First, because God’s law, which forbids stealing and fornication, bind him more strongly than conscience. Secondly, 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 per se evil. 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 552 to observe the practices of the Law by putting their hope in them, as though they were necessary for salvation, as Augustine said above [n. 1087]. Yet the Apostle says here that if a person’s conscience compels him to distinguish between foods, i.e., regards 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 is obliged by his office. Yet absolutely speaking, he is not perplexed, because he can confess and then celebrate. Similarly, someone can get rid of an erroneous conscience and abstain from sin. 1121. There is still another difficulty. For one is not said to place a stumbling block by doing a good work, even though someone takes the good work as a stumbling block, as Mt (15:12) says that the Pharisees took the words of Jesus as a stumbling block. But not to discriminate among foods is a good work; therefore, it should not be avoided just because someone with a erroneous conscience makes a stumbling block of it. For according to this, Catholics would have to 553 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" (I Th 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; secondly, according to the opinion of those still tolerated by the Church. But those weak in faith, considering that the practices of the Law should be observed, were still tolerated by the Church before the spread of the Gospel. Therefore, foods forbidden by the Law were not to be eaten, if they were a stumbling block. Heretics, however, are not tolerated by the Church; therefore, this reasoning does not apply to them. 1122. Then when he says, if your brother, he clarifies what he had said: first, that scandals must not be placed before a brother; secondly, how something is common [v. 20b; n. 1132]. 1123. In regard to the first he presents four arguments, the first of which is taken on the part of charity, saying: If y our brother is being injured by the fact that he thinks you are sinning by the food you eat, which he considers unclean, you are no longer walking in love, 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" (I Cor 13:5). 1124. Then when he says, Do not let your food, he presents the second argument taken on the part of Christ’s death. 554 For he seems to put little value on Christ’s death who voids its fruit for the sake of food. Hence he says: Do not let your food, of which you eat all without distinction, cause the ruin of one, 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" (I Pt 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" (I Cor 8:11). 1125. Then when he says, So do not let, 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; secondly, he clarifies what he had said [v. 17; n. 1127]; thirdly, he draws a conclusion [v. 19; n. 1130]. 1126. In regard to the first it should be noted that because some ate all foods without distinction in the early Church and thus set an obstacle before the weak, this impropriety followed, namely, that the weak blasphemed the faith of Christ, asserting that it fostered greediness in regard to food, contrary to the commandment of the Law. Therefore, the Apostle says: Although the Lord Jesus declared that nothing is unclean, we should not let our good, i.e., the faith and grace of Christ, though which you have obtained freedom from the ceremonies of the Law, be blasphemed by the weak who declare that it caters to man’s gluttony: "They blaspheme that honorable name by which 555 you are called" (Jas 2:7); concerning this good it says in Ps 73 (v. 6): "For me it is good to be near God." 1127. Then when he says, For the kingdom, he explains what he had said, namely, in what our good consists. First, he shows in what it does not consist, saying: 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. Mt (6:10) says of this: "Thy kingdom come" and Mic (4:7): "The Lord will reign over them in Mount Zion." We are joined to God and subjected to Him through our intellect and affections, as it says in Jn (4:24): "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." This is why the kingdom of God is considered mainly in things interior to man and not exterior. Hence Lk (17:21) says: "The kingdom of God is within you. 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 I Cor (8:8): "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do." 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 Gospel Questions [book 2, question 11], and is provided here in the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1517]: "Wisdom is justified in her children who understand that 556 righteousness does not consist in eating or in abstaining, but in tolerating need with equanimity and in temperance not destroying itself by abundance and by unsuitable ways of eating. It makes no difference," as is said in the Gloss "how, what, or how much one takes, provided he does it according to the habits of the men among whom he lives and for the needs of his person and health; but with how much power and severity of mind he suffers the lack of these, either when he should or of necessity must be deprived of them. 1128. Secondly, he shows in what our good consists, namely, in the kingdom of God, saying: Righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Here righteousness 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 Mt (6:33): "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness." Peace refers to the effect of justice [righteousness]. For peace is particularly disturbed, when one man does not give to another what he owes him. Hence it says in Is (32:17): "Peace is a work of justice." 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 Ps 100 (v. 2) says: "Serve the Lord with gladness." The cause of this joy is expressed when 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 (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 I Cor (13:6): "Charity does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right" and in Gal (5:22): "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace. 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 557 Mt (25:34). In that kingdom perfect righteousness will exist without any sin: "All your people are righteous" (Is 60:21). There will be perfect peace without any disquiet or fear: "My people will abide in a peaceful habitation" (Is 32:18). There will be joy there: "They shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Is 35:1). 1129. Then he proves what he had said, namely, that the kingdom of God consists in these things. For the man who seems to belong to the kingdom of God is one who is pleasing to God and approved by holy men. But this happens to the man in whom are found righteousness, peace and joy. Therefore, the kingdom of God consists in them. He says, therefore: It has been stated that the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; therefore, he who thus 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 righteousness, joy and peace is pleasing to God, Who is the founder of this kingdom: "There was one who pleased God and was loved by him" (Wis 4:10) and approved by men, i.e., approved by the members of this kingdom: "Who has been tested by it and found perfect" (Sir 31:10). 1130. Then when he says, Let us then, he infers the intended admonition. Inasmuch as the kingdom of God consists in righteousness, peace and spiritual joy, let us then, in order to arrive at the kingdom of God, pursue 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 then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding, 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" (I Cor 14:12). 558 1131. Then when he says, Do not for the sake of 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: Do not for the sake of food, which is used by the body, destroy 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 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 your, 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.
