:
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 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. 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. 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. 20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. 21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
Previous
Next
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 9:22-23:24
What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath, that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath of God. For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calls him not only "a vessel of wrath," but also one "fitted for destruction." That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out anything of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out anything of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew this, "He endured him with much long-suffering," being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath, He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known, but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul does not wish to appear powerful in this way ("not that we should appear approved," he says, "but that you should do that which is honest,") [2 Corinthians 13:7], much less does God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins but repented, He manifested His love toward man. But it does not say, love towards man, but glory, to show that this is especially God's glory, and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, "which He had afore prepared unto glory," he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles. And on this topic again he grounds a defense of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles, but, "of the Gentiles," nor, all the Jews, but, "of the Jews." As then Pharaoh became a vessel of wrath by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey. For though the more part is of God, still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness (παρρησίας), but "vessels of mercy," to show that the whole is of God. For the phrase, "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul, would create no difficulty. Because when he says, "it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs," he does not deprive us of free-will, but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. "Yet not I, but the grace which was with me." [1 Corinthians 15:10] And he well says, "Which He had afore prepared unto glory." For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace, and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory even to God, much more to them through whom God was glorified. But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh, but such of the Jews as had sinned, and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins, some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles were saved, while the Jews were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them "vessels of wrath." But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews. And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but "much long-suffering;" yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews. Whence then are some vessels of wrath, and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God, however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh, as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerns God, he had as much done for him as they who were saved. Having then given to the question that answer which was furnished by facts, in order to give his discourse the advantage of other testimony in its favor, he introduces the prophets also making the same declarations aforetime. For Hosea, he says, of old put this in writing, as follows:

Source: Homily 16 on Romans
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: Epistle LXXIII
[AD 382] Apollinaris of Laodicea on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:1-2
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eats herbs."

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, (τελειότεροι]) 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 had come, should do mischief on vital points, so by this continual rebuking setting them adrift from their agreement in (ὁ μολογίας εἰς) 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, You are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, You 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 defense 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 (ἀ σθενοὕντα), he points out that he is not healthy (ἄ ρρωστον). 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 stripe. 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 offense. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, "One believes that he may eat all things," commending him on the score of his faith. "Another who is weak, eats herbs," disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness. Then since the blow he had given was deadly (καιρίαν, used hyperbolically), he comforts him again in these words,

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:1
Paul points out that the person in question here is not healthy and that he must be received because he needs a lot of attention, because of his infirmity. Furthermore, he makes it appear that the weak man’s error is of such a nature that the others, although they do not share his weakness, are nevertheless disconcerted by it and liable to fall into uncertainty themselves.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 78
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 14:1
The weak were those who continued to observe the law.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 14:1
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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 14:1
1081. After showing how one ought to become perfect [n. 953], the Apostle now shows how the perfect should act toward the imperfect. First, he shows that they ought not scandalize or judge them; secondly, that they ought to uphold them, in chapter 15 [n. 1142]. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he forbids improper judgments; 533 secondly, he forbids placing stumbling blocks before the weak [v. 13b; n. 1115]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he gives an admonition; secondly, he explains it [v. 2; n. 1083]; thirdly, he assigns a reason [v. 3b; n. 1090]. 1082. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the early Church some of the Jews converted to Christ believed that the practices of the Law must be observed along with the Gospel, as is clear from Ac (v. 15). 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, but welcome, 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 Wis (9:5): "I am a man who is weak and short-lived, with little understanding of judgment and laws"; "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). 534 1083. Then when he says, One believes, he explains what he had said: first, he shows who are weak in faith; secondly, how disputes over opinions are to be avoided [v. 3; n. 1089]. 1084. In regard to the first it should be noted that among the observances of the Law one dealt with distinguishing among foods, because some foods were forbidden in the Law, as is clear from Lev (11:2ff). Therefore, the Apostle mentions this in particular, saying: One believes, namely, the one perfect in faith, that he may eat anything, since he does not consider himself bound to the observance of the Law: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man" (Mt 15:11); "Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (I Tim 4:4). 1085. It was not because they were naturally unclean that certain foods were forbidden in the Old Law. For just as in the case of words the word, "fool" signifies something not good, although the word itself is good, so in the case of animals, some animal is good according to its nature but evil in what it signifies, as a pig which signifies uncleanness. Therefore, the ancients were forbidden to eat its flesh, for in avoiding it they signified avoidance of uncleanness. For the entire life of that earlier people was centered on figures. But with the coming of Christ, Who is the truth, the figures ceased. 1086. He adds in regard to the weak: while the weak man eats only vegetables. 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 Lev (v. 11). 535 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 Gen (9:3): "As I gave you the green plants, I give you everything," 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 Gen (v. 3); for this reason a similar prohibition was not repeated. 1087. But since the practices of the Law ceased during the passion of Christ, it seems out of place for the Apostle to permit those weak in faith to abstain from foods forbidden in the Law, a practice no longer granted to Christians by the Church. But according to Augustine, three periods of time respecting the practices of the Law must be distinguished. The first is the time before Christ, when the practices of the Law were in full vigor and still alive. The second is the time after the passion of Christ but before the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices were dead, because no one was bound by them; and when they were practiced, no one benefited by them. Although dead, they were not death-dealing, because the Jews converted to Christ could practice them without sin. It is to this time that the Apostle refers here. The third is the time after the spreading of the Gospel, when the practices of the Law were not only dead but death-dealing, so that whoever practiced them sinned mortally. 1088. The Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1512] explains this in another way, namely, that the weak person is the one prone to fall into sensual vices. Such a person should be 536 advised to eat vegetables, i.e., mild and meager foods, which do not ferment vices, and to abstain from foods which stimulate sensual desire. But a stronger person believes that he can eat anything without danger. This difference appears between Christ’s disciples, who did not fast because they were strengthened by Christ’s presence, and the disciples of John the Baptist, who fasted. Hence, too, those who perform penances abstain from certain foods, not because they are unclean, but in order to restrain sensual desire. 1089. Then when he says, Let him who eats, he explains how to avoid differences of opinion. First, in regard to the perfect he says: Let him who eats, namely, with a secure conscience or even without danger of sensual desire, not despise him who abstains from certain foods, as weak in faith or prone to sensual vices: "Woe to you, despiser, will you not be despised in turn?" (Is 33:1); "He who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16). Secondly, in regard to the weak, saying: and let him who abstains from certain foods, either because he is weak in faith or because he is prone to sensual desire, not pass judgment on 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" (Mt 7:1); "You have no excuse, O man, when you judge another" (Rom 2:1). 1090. Then when he says, for God has welcomed him, he assigns two reasons why we should abstain from false judgment. The second is given at his Master [v. 4b; n. 1094]; the third at You who judge [v. 10; n. 1105]. The first reason is based on the authority of the one judging, hence: first, he shows that this authority belongs to God [v. 3c]; 537 secondly, he concludes that judgment does not belong to men [v. 4; n. 1092]. 1091. First, therefore, he says: I have been correct in saying that one who eats should not judge him who does not, for God has welcomed him: "I took two staff," i.e., two peoples (Zech 11:7); "He drew me out of many waters" (Ps 18:16). But the one who is drawn to the judgment of a superior should not be judged by an inferior. 1092. Therefore, he concludes, Who are you, i.e., of what authority and power are you, to pass judgment on the servant of another? For a judge must have authority, as it says in Ex (2:14): "Who made you a prince and a judge over us?" "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you" (Lk 12:14). 1093. But from this reasoning it seems to follow that a man’s judgment about another man is illicit. The answer is that a man’s judgment is licit, as long as he acts with divinely granted authority. Hence, it says in Dt (1:16): "Hear them and judge what is righteous," 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." 538 1094. Then when he says: It is before his own master that 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; secondly, he gives an example [v. 5; n. 1097]; thirdly, he proves the proposition [v. 6; n. 1099]. 1095. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he proposes that whatever happens to man pertains to God when he says: Before his master 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" (Am 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 Ec (8:10): "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." 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 Jb (35:6): "If you have sinned, what do you accomplish against him. If you are righteous, what do you give him." But in relation to men acts of righteousness look 539 to God’s glory: "That they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Mt 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 It is before his own master that he stands or falls should be explained as regarding the judgment of his Master: "The one who judges me is the Lord" (1Cor 4:4). 1096. Secondly, 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" (Ez 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 (11:23). 1097. Then when he says, one man esteems, he exemplifies what he had said. First, he proposes that human opinions vary, saying: I say that he stands or falls before his own master, because one man esteems one day as better than another, 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 540 be observed. For it says in Lev (23:27): "on the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; and you shall afflict yourselves on this day." And in Jdt (8:6) it is stated that Judith fasted all the days of her life, except on Sabbaths, new moons and feasts of the house of Israel. Another man esteems all days alike as far as observing the practices of the Law were concerned, 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" (Ec 3:1). 1098. Secondly, he shows that all these things can pertain to the glory of God, saying: Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind, i.e., be left to his own judgment: "God made man from the beginning and left him in the hands of his own counsel" (Sir 15:14). 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 Gal (4:10): "You observe days and months and seasons and years! I fear that I have labored over you in vain." 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 541 regard to the second explanation it seems to be illicit for him to say: "Another man esteems all days alike." For there are some days on which it is unlawful to fast. For Augustine says in a letter to Casulanus: "Whoever things 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 Decrees it is written: If on account of a public penance received from a priest a presbyter were to fast without any other need on the Lard’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 [a maioribus]. 1099. Then when he says, he who observes, 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; secondly, by their intention [v. 7; n. 1101]; thirdly, by their condition [v. 8; n. 1103]. 1100. First, therefore, he proves how each of the faithful stands or falls before his mater, because in everything he does according to his conscience, he gives thanks to God. Hence he says: He who observes the day by abstaining one day and refraining from it on another day, observes it in honor of 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 542 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 Mt (9:14) says that Christ’s disciples did not fast. Hence he says: He also 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" (I 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: He who abstains every day abstains in honor of the Lord. This is clear, because he gives thanks to God, Who gave him the will and virtue to abstain: "Give thanks in all circumstances" (I Th 5:18). But what the Apostle says here about those who abstain every day or cease abstaining should be understood with respect to that time when this was not contrary to the decrees of major authorities or to the common customs of the people of God. 1101. Then when he says, 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 Heb (2:4): "My just man lives by faith." To himself, i.e., for himself, because that would be to enjoy himself: "Not seeking what is useful for me" (I Cor 10:33); "Not to us, O Lord, not to us give the glory" (Ps 114:9); to himself, i.e., according to his own rule, as those who say: "Let our might be our law of 543 right" (Wis 2:11); to himself, i.e., according to his own judgment: "I do not even judge myself" (I Cor 4:3). And none of us dies to himself, namely, a bodily death or a spiritual death by sinning, or even a spiritual death where9in one dies to his vices, as in baptism, as it says above (6:7): "He who has died is freed from sin." For to himself, i.e., to his own judgment or for himself or by his example: "The death he died he died to sin once for all " (Rom 6:10); and a few verses later: "So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin. 1102. Secondly, he describes the right intention of believers, saying: If we live with our bodily life, we live to the Lord, i.e., to the glory of the Lord; and if we die a bodily death, we die to 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). 1103. Then when he says, so then, 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: so then, whether 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" (I Cor 7:23); "You were bought with a great price" (I Cor 6:20); "We are yours, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse!" (I Chr 12:18). 544 1104. Secondly, he assigns the cause of this condition, saying: For to this end Christ died and lived again, i.e., by His death and resurrection He obtained the right to be Lord of the living, because He rose to begin a new and perpetual life, and of the dead, because by dying He destroyed our death: "He died for all that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who for their sake died and arose (2 Cor 5:15). Thus, therefore, by all the foregoing the Apostle has proved that each one stands or falls before his master, namely, by the fact that believers give thanks to God and that they live and die to the Lord and that in life and in death we are the Lord’s. 1105. Then when he says, Why do you, 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: Why do you pass judgment, i.e., of what use or need is your judgment, on your brother, rashly judging hidden matters not committed to your judgment? Or you, who are judged, why do you despise your brother, regarding as nothing the fact that you are judged by him? "Why does each one despise his brother?" (Mic 2:10). 1106. Secondly, 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 Mt (25:20): "When the Son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the glorious throne." 545 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 sat 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" (Mt 19:28). 1107. Thirdly, when he says, for it is written, he proves what he had said: first, he appeals to an authority; secondly, he draws the conclusion [v. 12; n. 1112]. 1108. First, therefore, he says: I have stated that all of us will stand before the tribunal of Christ. This is clear from the testimony of Sacred Scripture: for it is written (Is 45:23): As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. Our text has this: "I have sword by myself that to me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear." 1109. Three things are stated in these words: first, the oath sometimes used by God to show that what is said is as solid as the unchangeableness of God’s plan and not changeable as things foretold according to lower causes, as prophecies that threaten. Hence it says in Ps 110 (v. 4): "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind." But men, as the Apostle says in Heb (6:16), "swear by a greater than themselves." But because God has none greater than Himself on which the strength of His truth depends, He swears by Himself. 546 Furthermore, God is life itself and the source of life, as it says in Dt (30:20): "He is your life and the length of your days"; "With thee is the fountain of life" (Ps 36:9). Therefore, the formula of the Lord’s oath is, as I live. As if to say: I swear by the life I uniquely live. 1110. Secondly, 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 Phil (2:11): "At the name of Jesus every knee should bend in heaven and on the earth and under the earth. 1111. Thirdly, he foretells the confession of faith by which all will confess the glory of Christ. Hence he continues: and every tongue shall give praise to God, i.e., will confess that Christ is God, as it says in Phil (2:11): "Every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Every tongue can be understood as the expression of the knowledge of men or of angels, as it says in I Cor (13:1): "If I speak in the tongue of men and of angels." 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 Heb (2:8): "Now in subjecting everything to him, he left nothing outside his control." 1112. Then when he says, so each of us, he draws the conclusion from the foregoing. 547 First, the conclusion intended from what he had just said, saying: Therefore, from the fact that every knee will bend before Christ, each of us shall give an account of himself before God, i.e., before the tribunal of Christ: "On the day of judgment every man shall render an account for every careless word he uttered" (Mt 12:36); "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants" (Mt 18:23). 1113. But it seems that not everyone will give an account of himself, but one for someone else: "Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account" (Heb 13:17). The answer is that in the very fact that prelates will render an account for others, they will render an account for their own actions, which they6 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 Ez (3:18ff): "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." 1114. Secondly, he draws the conclusion chiefly intended from the entire preceding part, saying: Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, i.e., with a rash judgment, which is included in the reason given above: "Do not pronounce judgment before the time" (I Cor 4:5).
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:2
"Now the weak eateth herbs "according to the noble apostle.
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:2
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:2
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:2
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:2
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 78
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 14:2
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.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:3
"Let him who eateth, not despise him who eateth not; and let him who eateth not, not judge him who eateth.".
"Qui "itaque "non comedit, comedentem ne spernat. Qui autem comedit, eum qui non comedit non judicet: Deus enim ipsum accepit."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:3
We are not to abstain completely from different kinds of food but only not to be preoccupied with them. We are to eat what is set before us, as a Christian should, out of respect to our host.

Source: THE INSTRUCTOR 2.1
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:3
Paul wants harmony to prevail in the church between those who are more mature and those who are less.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:3
What we eat or do not eat is a matter of personal choice and therefore it should not become a matter for argument.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:3
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 eats not, judge him that eats." 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 has 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 has received him." Why then do you speak to him of the law, as to a transgressor? "For God has received him:" that is, has shown His unspeakable grace about him, and has freed him from all charges against him; then again he turns to the strong.

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:3
Paul does not say that the one who eats should simply ignore the one who abstains, nor does he suggest that the latter should not be blamed and put right. All he is saying is that the stronger ones should not look down on the weak or be contemptuous of them. Likewise, those who abstain are not to pass judgment on those who eat. For just as the strong mocked the weak, claiming that they had no faith, that they were not really saved and that they were Judaizers, so the others thought that the strong ones were lawbreakers and gluttonous. Since these were probably mostly Gentiles, Paul adds that God has welcomed them.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:3
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:3
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 78
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:3
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.

Source: LETTER 36
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 14:4
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.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on Romans 14:4
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.

Source: Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies Book IX
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 14:4
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."

Source: Epistle LI
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 14:4
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."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:4
The servant is not guilty whether he eats or not, as long as he does what he does in a spirit of devotion.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 14:4
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?

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:4
Whence it appears that they too judged, and did not despise only. "To his own Master he stands or falls." 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 requires 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 are you 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 yours, but God's. Then to solace him again he does not say, "falls," but what? "stands or falls." 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 undergoes the loss, hitherto does nothing, how can you be else than ill-timed and out of all measure exact, when you seize on (ἄ γκων], throttle) him and annoy him?

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:4
It is not because someone does things which are worthy of escaping judgment that we are not to judge, but because the person in question is another man’s servant—not ours but God’s. It is up to God to decide what to do.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:4
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:4
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 79
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:4
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.

Source: SERMON ON THE MOUNT 2.18.59
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:5
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:5
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 (or urgent, περισπούδαστον]) 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." [Colossians 2:8, see p. 4] And again, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink" [Colossians 2:16], and, "let no man beguile you of your reward." [Colossians 2:18] 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 preaches unto you any gospel other than that you have received, let him be accursed" [], "even" if it be "an angel." And again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted." [2 Corinthians 11:3] And in writing to the Philippians, he says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." [Philippians 3:2] 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. It was to clear away the vanity of the others and to release these from fear then, that he said as follows:

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:5
Here it seems to me that Paul is giving a subtle hint about fasting. For it is probable that those who fasted were always passing judgment on those who did not, and it is likely that some of those who fasted did so on particular days.… Paul releases those who fasted out of fear from their bondage by saying that it was something which was basically indifferent.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:5
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:5
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 80
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 14:5
This is not to be made an article of faith, as Paul himself says.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:6
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."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:6
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 (these words are repeated 3 manuscripts), if both terminate in thanksgiving. For indeed both this man 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 eats it is that "gives thanks," and not "he which eats 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" [Galatians 5:4]; 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 (see p. 337): but by what follows he gives it a further opening. For where he says,

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:6
Paul continues his exposition [from the previous verse]. The issue at stake is not a fundamental one. Both sides are acting for God’s sake, and both end up by giving him thanks. Thus the difference between them turns out to be a minor one. Nevertheless, Paul aims a blow at the Judaizers, because he accepts the validity of all foods.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:6
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:6
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:7
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:7
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:7
This means that we are not free. We have a master who wants us to live and not die, and to whom life and death matter more than they do to us.… For if we die, we do not die to ourselves alone but to our master as well. By “death,” Paul means apostasy from the faith.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:7-8
"For none of us lives unto himself, and no man dies 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 lives 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 lives to himself?" It means, We are not free, we have a Master who also would have us live, and wills 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 has a greater concern for us than we have ourselves, and considers 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 takes 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?

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:7
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.”

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:8
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:8
One who is living under the law cannot be living to Christ as well.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:8
Therefore, we must take care that we do not live for ourselves in eating or die on account of others in fasting.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 14:8
If we live, it is Christ’s life that we live; if we die, we die with him, under his custody.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 202] Irenaeus on Romans 14:9
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."

Source: Against Heresies Book III
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:9
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 bodies4 and mortify their members which are on earth.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 311] Methodius of Olympus on Romans 14:9
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"

Source: Methodius From the Discourse on the Resurrection
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:9
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:9
And so let us at least convince you, 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, οἰκονομίας])? He then that has 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. Exodus 21:21] 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 takes care. But if He does of the departed, it is quite plain that He does of the living also. For He has 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,

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:9
Look how Christ takes care of the dead. If he is concerned about the departed, it is clear that he will be concerned about the living as well. For nothing escapes his lordship.… Christ put down his own life for our salvation. Having gone to so much trouble and expense, he is not likely to consider us as being of no value.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:9
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:10
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:10
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 do you set at nought your 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."

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:10
At first sight, Paul seems to be attacking the stronger here, but he is also laying into the legalists, by calling their attention to the great benefit which they have received in Christ and to the terror of the judgment to come.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:10
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 14:10
“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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 14:10
Paul addresses these words to the Jews.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 14:10
Once again Paul takes up his earlier theme and by adding the word brother shows how inappropriate this kind of judging is.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:11
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:11
Be careful when you see the Master sitting on his judgment seat, and do not make schisms or divisions in the church by breaking away from grace and running back to the law. For the law belongs to Christ as well.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:11-12
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 given 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 you, but Christ, of you 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,

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:11
This shows that we must all account for our actions to the Lord alone.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 155] Polycarp of Smyrna on Romans 14:12
If we ask the Lord to forgive us we should also forgive, for we stand before the eyes of the Lord God, and “we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,” and “each must give account of himself.”

Source: THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 6
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 14:12
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."

Source: Epistle LXXV
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:12
Since we are not going to give account of each other, says Paul, let us not condemn one another over the issues mentioned above.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:12
It is not the law which will demand an account from us but Christ. You see from this how Paul has released us from the fear of the law.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:12
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 500] Desert Fathers on Romans 14:12
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.’

Source: The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 14:13
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.

Source: To His Wife Book II
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:13
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 offense 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 offense 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 offense also? But what if he gives himself the offense, you may say, by being weak? Why this is just why you ought 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 Timothy 2:14]; 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 21:23-29] And therefore thou, when you are the author of destruction to others, will suffer more severely than those who have been subverted by you. 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." [Romans 1:32] 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. And let us be continually in mind of the awful judgment-seat, of the stream of fire, of the chains never to be loosed, of the darkness with no light, the gnashing of teeth, and the venomous worm. "Ah, but God is merciful!" Are these then mere words? And was not that rich man punished for despising Lazarus? Are not the foolish virgins cast out of the Bride-chamber? Do not they who did not feed Him go away into "the fire prepared for the devil?" [Matthew 25:41] Will not he that has soiled garments be "bound hand and foot" [Matthew 22:13], and go to ruin? Will, not he that demanded the hundred pence to be paid, be given over to the tormentors? Is not that said of the adulterers true, that "their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched?" [Mark 9:43] Are these but mere threats then? Yea, it is answered. And from what source pray do you venture to make such an assertion, and that too when you pass judgment of your own opinion? Why, I shall be able to prove the contrary, both from what He said, and from what He did. [See John 5:22] For if you will not believe by the punishments that are to come, at least believe by those that have happened already. For what have happened, and have come forth into reality, surely are not threats and words. Who then was it that flooded the whole world, and affected that baleful wreck, and the utter destruction of our whole race! Who was it that after this hurled those thunders and lightnings upon the land of Sodom? Who that drowned all Egypt in the sea? Who that consumed the six hundred thousand men in the wilderness? Who that burnt up the synagogue of Abiram? Who that bade the earth open her mouth for the company of Core and Dathan, and swallow them up? Who that carried off the threescore and ten thousand at one sweep in David's time? Shall I mention also those that were punished individually! Cain, who was given up to a continual vengeance? (the son of) Charmi, who was stoned with his whole family? Or him, that suffered the same thing for gathering sticks on the sabbath? The forty children who were consumed by those beasts, and obtained no pardon even on the score of their age? And if you would see these same things even after the times of grace, just consider what great suffering the Jews had, how the women ate their children, some roasting them, and some consuming them in other ways: how after being given up to irremediable famine, and wars varied and severe, they threw all previous catastrophes into the shade by the exceeding greatness of their own calamities. For that it was Christ Who did these things unto them, hear Him declaring as much, both by parables, and clearly and explicitly. By parables, as when He says, "But those that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them" [Luke 19:27]; and by that of the vineyard, and that of the marriage. But clearly and explicitly, as when He threatens that they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into the nations, and there shall be upon the earth "distress of nations with perplexity, at the roaring of the sea and waves; men's hearts failing them for fear." (ib. 21:24, 25, 26.) "And there shall be tribulation, such as there never was, no, nor ever shall be." [Matthew 24:21] And what a punishment Ananias too and Sapphira suffered, for the theft of a few pieces of money, you all know. Do you see not the daily calamities also? Or have these too not taken place? Do you see not now men that are pining with famine? Those that suffer elephantiasis, or are maimed in body? Those that live in constant poverty, those that suffer countless irreparable evils? Now then will it be reasonable for some to be punished, and some not? For if God be not unjust (and unjust He is not), thou also will assuredly suffer punishment, if you sin. But if because He is merciful He does not punish, then ought not these either to have been punished. But now because of these words of yours, God even here punishes many, that when you believe not the words of the threatening, the deeds of vengeance ye may at least believe.

And since things of old do not affright you so much, by things which happen in every generation, He corrects those that in every generation are growing listless. And what is the reason, it may be said, why He does not punish all here? That He may give the others an interval for repentance. Why then does He not take vengeance upon all in the next world? It is lest many should disbelieve in His providence. How many robbers are there who have been taken, and how many that have left this life unpunished? Where is the mercy of God then? It is my turn now to ask of you. For supposing no one at all had vengeance taken upon him, then you might have taken refuge in this. But now that some are punished, and some are not, though they be the worse sinners, how can it be reasonable that there be not the same punishments for the same sins? How can those punished appear to be else than wronged? What reason is there then why all are not punished here? Hear His own defense for these things. For when some had died by the falling of a tower on them: He said to those who raised a question upon this, "Suppose ye that they were sinners above all men? I tell you nay, but except ye repent, you shall all likewise perish" [Luke 13:4-5]; so exhorting us not to feel confident when others suffer punishment, and we ourselves, though we have committed many transgressions, do not. For except we change our conduct, we assuredly shall suffer. And how, it may be said, is it that we are to be punished without end for sinning a short time here? How, I ask, is it that in this world, those who in a short moment of time have done one murder, are condemned to constant punishment in the mines? "But it is not God that does this," it may be said. How then came He to keep the man with a palsy for thirty and eight years in so great punishments? For that it was for sins that He punished him, hear what He says, "Behold, you are made whole, sin no more." [John 5:14] Still it is said, he found a release. But the case is not so with the other life. For that there, there will never be any release, hear from His own mouth, "Their worm will not die, nor their fire be quenched." [Mark 9:44] And "these shall go into everlasting life, but these into everlasting punishment." [Matthew 25:46] Now if the life be eternal, the punishment is eternal. Do you see not how severely He threatened the Jews? Then have the things threatened come to pass, or were those that were told them a mere talk? "One stone shall not remain upon another." [Luke 21:6] And has it remained? But what, when He says, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been?" [Matthew 24:21] Has it not come then? Read the history of Josephus, and you will not be able to draw your breath even, at only hearing what they suffered for their doings. This I say, not that I may pain you, but that I may make you secure, and lest by having humored you overmuch, I should but make a way for the endurance of sorer punishments. For why, pray, do you not deem it right you should be punished for sinning? Hath He not told you all beforehand? Hath He not threatened you? Not come to your aid? not done things even without number for your salvation's sake? Gave He you not the laver of Regeneration, and forgave He not all your former sins? Hath He not after this forgiveness, and the laver, also given you the succor of repentance if you sin? Hath He not made the way to forgiveness of sins, even after all this, easy to you? Hear then what He has enjoined: "If you forgive your neighbor, I also will forgive you" [Matthew 6:14], He says. What hardship is there in this? "If you judge the cause of the fatherless, and see that the widow have right, come and let us converse together," He says, "and if your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow." [Isaiah 1:17-18] What labor is there here? "Tell your sins, that you may be justified." [Isaiah 43:26, Septuagint] What hardship is there in this? "Redeem your sins with alms." [Daniel 4:24] What toilsomeness is there in this? The Publican said, "Be merciful to me a sinner," and "went down home justified." [Luke 18:13-14] What labor is it to imitate the Publican? And will you not be persuaded even after this that there is punishment and vengeance? At that rate you will deny that even the devil is punished. For, "Depart," He says, "into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels." [Matthew 25:41] Now if there be no hell, then neither is he punished. But if he is punished, it is plain that we shall also. For we also have disobeyed, even if it be not in the same way. And how do you come not to be afraid to speak such daring things? For when you say that God is merciful, and does not punish, if He should punish he will be found in your case to be no longer merciful. See then unto what language the devil leads you? And what are the monks that have taken up with the mountains, and yield examples of such manifold self-denial, to go away without their crown? For if the wicked are not to be punished, and there is no recompense made to any one, some one else will say, perhaps, that neither are the good crowned. Nay, it will be said, For this is suitable with God, that there should be a kingdom only, and not a hell. Well then, shall the whoremonger, and the adulterer, and the man who has done evils unnumbered, enjoy the same advantages with the man who has exhibited soberness and holiness, and Paul is to stand with Nero, or rather even the devil with Paul? For if there be no hell and yet there will be a Resurrection of all, then the wicked will attain to the same good things! And who would say this? Who even of men that were quite crazed? Or rather, which of the devils even would say this? For even they confess that there is a hell. Wherefore also they cried out and said, "Have You come hither to torment us before the time?" [Matthew 8:29]

How then do you come not to fear and tremble, when even the devils confess what yourself art denying? Or how is it that thou dost not see who is the teacher of these evil doctrines? For he who deceived the first man, and under the pretext of greater hopes, threw them out even of the blessings they had in possession, he it is who now suggests the saying and fancying of these things. And for this reason he persuades some to suspect there is no hell, that he may thrust them into hell. As God on the other hand threatens hell, and made hell ready, that by coming to know of it you might so live as not to fall into hell. And yet if, when there is a hell, the devil persuades you to these things, how came the devils to confess it, if it did not exist, whose aim and desire it is that we should not suspect anything of the kind, that through fearlessness we might become the more listless, and so fall with them into that fire? How then (it will be said) came they to confess it? It was through their not bearing the compulsion laid upon them. Taking all these things into consideration then, let those who talk in this way leave off deceiving both themselves and others since even for these words of theirs they will be punished for detracting (διασύροντες]) from those awful things, and relaxing the vigor of many who are minded to be in earnest, and do not even do as much as those barbarians, for they, though they were ignorant of everything, when they heard that the city was to be destroyed, were so far from disbelieving, that they even groaned, and girded themselves with sackcloth, and were confounded, and did not cease to use every means until they had allayed the wrath. [Jonah 3:5] But do you, who hast had so great experience of facts and of teaching, make light of what is told you? The contrary then will be your fate. For as they through fear of the words had not to undergo the vengeance in act, so thou who despisest the threatening by words, will have to undergo the punishment in very deed. And if now what you are told seems a fable to you, it will not, however, seem so when the very things convince you, in that Day. Have you never noticed what He did even in this world? How when He met with two thieves, He counted them not worthy of the same estate, but one He led into the Kingdom, and the other He sent away into Hell? And why speak I of a robber and murderer? For even the Apostle He did not spare, when he had become a traitor, but even when He saw him rushing to the halter, and hanging, and bursting asunder in the midst (for he did "burst asunder, and all his bowels gushed out") [Acts 1:18], still when He foresaw all these things, He let him suffer all the same, giving you from the present a proof of all that is in the other world also. Do not then cheat yourselves, through being persuaded of the devil. These devices are his. For if both judges, and masters, and teachers, and savages, respect the good, and punish the evil, with what reason is the contrary to be the case with God, while the good man and he who is not so are deemed worthy of the same estate? And when will they leave off their wickedness? For they who now are expecting punishment, and are among so many terrors, those from the judges and from the laws, and yet do not for this depart from iniquity; when on their departing this life they are to lay aside even this fear, and are not only not to be cast into hell, but are even to obtain a kingdom; when will they leave doing wickedly? Is this then mercy, pray? To add to wickedness, to set up rewards for iniquity, to count the sober and the unchastened, the faithful and the irreligious, Paul and the devil, to have the same deserts? But how long am I to be trifling? Wherefore I exhort you to get you free from this madness, and having grown to be your own masters, persuade your souls to fear and to tremble, that they may at once be saved from the hell to come, and may, after passing the life in this world soberly, attain unto the good things to come by the grace and love towards man, etc.

Source: Homily 25 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:13
Consider the great punishment we shall suffer if we give offense at all. If the thing concerned was against the law and some people rebuked others wrongly, Paul forbade them to do so, in order not to cause a brother to stumble and fall. If we give offense without having anything to put right, what treatment will we deserve? For if not saving others is a crime (as is demonstrated by the man who buried his one talent), what will be the result if we offend him as well? But you may say: What if he brings the offense on himself, by being weak? Well, this is precisely why you ought to be patient. For if he were strong, he would not require so much care.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:13
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 14:13
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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 500] Desert Fathers on Romans 14:13
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.’

Source: The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 14:13
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.
[AD 258] Novatian on Romans 14:14
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.

Source: JEWISH FOODS 5.6
[AD 390] Diodorus of Tarsus on Romans 14:14
This means that nothing is common or unclean when eaten with faith in Christ.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:14
"I know, and am persuaded by (Gr. in) the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

After first rebuking the person who judges 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 (or "believe," τὥν οὐ πιστὥν]) saying, And what is it to us if you are persuaded? For you are 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 you are persuaded of and know? 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 esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." What then? Why not correct your 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. Wherefore he proceeds,

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:14
Nothing is unclean by nature, but it becomes so by the spirit in which a person uses it.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 25
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:14
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on Romans 14:14
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.

Source: EXPLANATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:15
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on Romans 14:15
The Christian must serve everyone who is upset with him in every way, at least insofar as he can.

Source: THE MORALS 5.3
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:15
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 400] Pseudo-Clement on Romans 14:15
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!

Source: Two Epistles on Virginity
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:15
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 your meat, for whom Christ died." Or do you not value your 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 you may 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 are you aware that by meat you are overthrowing him in the more important matters, and yet makest a disputing? And him who is the object of such care unto Christ, do you consider so contemptible, and dishonor one whom He loves? Yet He died not for the weak only, but even for an enemy. And will you not 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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:15
You see how far Paul bends in the name of charity, endeavoring to draw the erring brother by yielding to him so as not to hurt him. For even when he has freed him from his fears, he does not drag or force him but leaves him to his own decision. Abstaining from food is not in the same category as seriously injuring somebody by what you eat.Do you not value your brother enough even to purchase his salvation at the price of abstaining from certain types of food? Christ did not refuse to become a servant and even to die for him, but you will not even give up your food in order to save him!

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:15
One who ruins his brother has subverted peace and harmed joy in a way which is more serious even than stealing money. What is worse is that although another has saved him, you have wronged him and ruined him.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:15
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 471] Gennadius of Constantinople on Romans 14:15
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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:16
"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 Spirit."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:16
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:16
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:16-17
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 you fight, when you quarrel, when you are vexatious, when you make schism in the Church, and reproachest your brother, and are 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 (ἐ πιεικείας]). 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 you eat, does this lead you 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, has at once subverted peace, and wronged joy, more grievously than he that plunders money. And what is worse is, that Another saved him, and you wrong 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,

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:16
By “what is good to you” Paul means either their faith, or the hope of reward in the hereafter, or the perfection of their religious state. For it is not just that you fail to do anything to help your brother, Paul says, but you even cause the doctrine itself, the grace of God and his gift, to be spoken evil of.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:16
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on Romans 14:16
Paul is saying that he praises their faith but does not want it to become the cause of cursing and damnation.

Source: INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 14:16
Even if you are teaching correctly, your argument may become the cause of blasphemy.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:17
Quomodo ergo esuriunt, et sitiunt, et camis patiuntur affectiones, et alia, quae non patietur, qui per Christum accepit perfectam, quae speratur, resurrectionem? Quin etiam ii, qui colunt idola, a cibis et venere abstinent. "Non est "autem, inquit, "regnum Dei cibus est potus.".
Atqui hic ipse exclamavit: "Non est regnum Dei esca et potus: "neque vero abstinentia a vino et carnibus; "sed justitia, et pax, et gaudium in Spiritu sancto."

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book III
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:17
He who eats of this meal, the best of all, will possess the kingdom of God, fixing his gaze on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly church.

Source: CHRIST THE EDUCATOR 2.1
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 14:17
For a defiled spirit cannot be acknowledged by a holy Spirit, nor a sad by a joyful, nor a lettered by a free.

Source: On Prayer
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 14:17
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.

Source: On Fasting
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:17
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 258] Cyprian on Romans 14:17
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."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:17
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 14:17
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.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:17
By “the kingdom of God” Paul means the church, in which God reigns.

Source: LETTER 36
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:18
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:18
For they will not admire you so much for your 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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:18
Men will approve of such a person, not so much because of his perfect state but because of his devotion to peace and good relations.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:18
No one can doubt that a person like this is holy.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:19
Sed et qui utitur, "cum gratiarum actione"
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:19
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:19
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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:19
This applies to both sides equally. The one must become peaceable and the other must not destroy his brother. Without peace it is impossible to edify anyone.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:19
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:20
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."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:20
It is the mark of a silly mind to be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets after having enjoyed the rich fare which is in the Word of God.

Source: CHRIST THE EDUCATOR 2.1
[AD 220] Tertullian on Romans 14:20
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.

Source: On Fasting
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:20
Cleanliness and uncleanness inhere not in the things themselves but rather in the minds and thoughts of those who use them.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:20
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!

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:20
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 you intend, that you 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 eats with offense."

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 makes unclean, but the intention with which a man eats. If then thou dost not set that aright, you have 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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:20
Here “the work of God” means the salvation of a brother. For these people were so far away from building others up that they were prepared to destroy what God had made, and not for any great matter but for something very trivial.It is not the eating which is unclean but the intention behind it. If you have not put that right but forced him to eat anyway, you have done it to no purpose and have made everything worse. Thinking that something is unclean is not as bad as tasting it when you think it is unclean. In that case you are committing two errors: first, by increasing his opposition by your quarrelsome attitude, and second, by getting him to taste what to him is unclean. As long as you have not persuaded him, do not try to force him.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:20
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 990] Oecumenius on Romans 14:20
God did his work on the cross, but now you are destroying it.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 1274] Thomas Aquinas on Romans 14:20
1132. After presenting a reason to show that we should not set a stumbling block before our neighbor by eating all foods indiscriminately [n. 1122], 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: Everything, indeed, which can pertain to man’s food is 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 Mt (15:11): "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man"; and in I Tim (4:4): "Everything created by God is good." But certain things were declared unclean under the Law not of their nature but by reason of what they signified, as is clear in Lev (11:2ff). 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 (Ac 10:15). Secondly [n. 1133], when he says, but it is wrong, 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; secondly, when he eats food contrary to his conscience [v. 22b; n. 1138]. 1133. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he shows what is evil in taking food, saying: Although all things are by their nature good, nevertheless, it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats: "Woe to the world for stumbling blocks" (Mt 18:7). Secondly, he shows what is good in eating foods of this sort, saying: It is good not to eat meat or drink wine, the first of which seems to be the principal food and the second the principal drink. 560 He says that it is good to abstain from these either to tame the desires of the flesh, as it says in Eph (5:18): "Do not get drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery," 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" (Ec 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: or do anything that makes your brother stumble. 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 upset, i.e., disturbed about you, as if you were acting unlawfully. By this his peace is disturbed or he sees a stumbling block, i.e., is tempted to fall into sin; wherefore, his righteousness is injured or is weakened, i.e., begins at least to wonder whether what is done is lawful, so that his spiritual joy is lessened. 1135. But since it is lawful to use these foods, if one must abstain from using them for fear of putting a stumbling block before his neighbor, then by the same token it seems that one should abstain from all lawful things which are not necessary for salvation, as righteousness, 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 [scandal] 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" (Mt 18:10). But if scandal of this sort arises from the malice of those 561 scandalized, such scandal is Pharisaical and the Lord taught that it should be ignored. Hence, to avoid scandal of this sort, it is not necessary to abstain from lawful things. But yet in regard to scandal of little ones, it should be noted that to avoid it, a person is bound to postpone the use of lawful things, until this scandal can be removed by explaining one’s conduct. But if the scandal still remains after such an explanation, then it would seem to proceed not from ignorance or from weakness but from malice, so that it will now be Pharisaical scandal. 1136. Thirdly, 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: You, who would use all foods indiscriminately, have the faith, through which it is clear that it is lawful to use these foods. This faith is good and praiseworthy, but keep it between you and God, Whom such faith pleases: "God is well pleased with faith and meekness" (Sir 18:14). As if to say: It is not fitting to manifest your faith by an outward work, when this becomes a stumbling block to your neighbor. 1137. But this seems to be contradicted by something he said above (10:10): "Man believes with his heart and so is justified; and he confesses with his lips and so is saved." 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 562 37 Cf. Augustine, De libero Arbitrio, book 3, ch. 21. the time of Augustine the Church had not yet declared that the soul was not transferred from the parent.37 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 your faith between yourself 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 Mt (15:12ff). 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. It. And so it is also not required of those who have correct faith, that they manifest their faith by the use of foods. For they could manifest it by word. 1138. Then when he says, happy is he, 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 [nn. 1139, 1140]: 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: Happy is he who has no reason to judge himself, i.e., whose conscience neither chides nor condemns him for what he approves to be done. 563 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 Jn (16:2), he is not excused just because he does not judge himself in this matter. 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" (I Cor 1:12); "My heart does not reproach me for any of my days" (Jb 27:6). 1139. Secondly, he shows what is evil in this matter, namely, that one acts against his conscience. Hence he says: But he who has doubts, 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" (*** 3:110. 1140. Thirdly, 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 564 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 I Cor (10:31): "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1141. But it should be noted that the believer’s relation to good differs from the unbeliever’s relation to evil. For there is nothing of condemnation in a person who has living faith, as was said above (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 is 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" (*** 1:15).
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on Romans 14:21
Neither in discourse or food are we to join, looking with suspicion on the pollution thence proceeding, as on the tables of the demons. "It is good, then, neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine".
Scriptum est enim: "Bonum est carnero non coined ere, nec vinum bibere, si quis comedat per offendiculum."
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:21
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:21
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:21
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 16:3], when he was shorn [Acts 18:18], when he sacrificed that Jewish sacrifice. [Acts 21:26]. 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 offense, refrain. For nothing is so important as your 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 "stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak." And do not tell me (he means) that he is so without reason but, that you have power to set it right. For the other has a sufficient claim to be helped in his weakness, and to you this were no loss, not being a case of hypocrisy [], but of edification and economy. For if you force him, he is at once destroyed, and will condemn you, and fortify himself the more in not eating. But if you condescend to him, then he will love you, and will not suspect you as a teacher, and you will afterwards gain the power of sowing imperceptibly in him the right views. But if he once hate you, then you have closed the entrance for your reasoning. Do not then compel him, but even yourself refrain for his sake, not refraining from it as unclean, but because he is offended, and he will love you 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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:21
If you force him he will be immediately destroyed and will condemn you, strengthening himself all the more by refusing to eat. But if you yield to him, then he will love you and will not suspect you as a teacher, and afterward you will discover that you have gained the power of sowing in him the right views. But once he starts hating you, you have closed the door to reason. Do not compel him therefore, but refrain for his sake, not because the thing is unclean but because he is offended, and then he will love you all the more.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on Romans 14:22
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:22
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:22
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, Do you wish to show me that you are perfect, and fully furnished? Do not show it to me, but let your 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" [Romans 10:10]; and, "Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny." [Luke 9:26] For the former by not being confessed, ruins us; and so does this by being confessed unseasonably. "Happy is he that condemns not himself in the thing which he allows." 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, you are able to be happy in yourself. For after saying, "Have it to yourself," to prevent his thinking this a contemptible tribunal, he tells him this is better to you than the world. And if all accuse you, and thou condemn not yourself, and your conscience lay no charge against you, you are 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.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:22
It seems to me that here Paul is gently warning the stronger ones against the temptation of vanity. He does not want them to go around boasting of their superiority but to be happy with having a clear conscience.

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:22
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.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on Romans 14:22
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.

Source: AUGUSTINE ON ROMANS 81
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on Romans 14:23
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.

Source: THE MORALS 80.22
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on Romans 14:23
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.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 395] Gregory of Nyssa on Romans 14:23
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.

Source: ON PERFECTION
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:23
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 eats, and does 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 eats 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 your brother be grieved with your meat, now you do not walk charitably." But if one should not grieve him, much less ought one to give him offense. 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.

Let us then watch our own conduct on all sides, and afford to no one ever so little handle. For this life present is a race-course and we ought to have thousands of eyes [Hilary in Psalm 119] on every side, and not even to fancy that ignorance will be an adequate excuse. For there is such a thing, there certainly is, as being punished for ignorance, when the ignorance is inexcusable. Since the Jews too were ignorant, yet not ignorant in an excusable way. And the Gentiles were ignorant, but they are without excuse. [Romans 1:20] For when you are ignorant of those things which it is not possible to know, you will not be subject to any charge for it: but when of things easy and possible, you will be punished with the utmost rigor. Else if we be not excessively supine, but contribute our own share to its full amount, God will also reach forth His hand unto us in those things which we are ignorant of. And this is what Paul said to the Philippians likewise. "If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." [Philippians 3:15] But when we are not willing to do even what we are masters of, we shall not have the benefit of His assistance in this either. And this was the case with the Jews too. "For this cause," He says, "speak I unto them in parables, because seeing they see not." [Matthew 13:13] In what sense was it that seeing they saw not? They saw devils cast out, and they said, He has a devil. They saw the dead raised, and they worshipped not, but attempted to kill Him. But not of this character was Cornelius. [Matthew 12:24] For this reason then, when he was doing the whole of his duty with sincerity, God added unto him that which was lacking also. Say not then, how came God to neglect such and such a one who was no formalist (ἄ πλαστος) and a good man, though a Gentile? For in the first place no man can possibly know for certain whether a person is no formalist, but He only who "formed (πλάσαντι) the hearts severally." [Psalm 33:15] And then there is this to be said too, that perchance (πολλάκις) such an one was neither thoughtful nor earnest. And how, it may be said, could he, as being very uninformed? (ἄ πλαστος.) Let me beg you to consider then this simple and single-hearted man, and take notice of him in the affairs of life, and you will see him a pattern of the utmost scrupulousness, such that if he would have shown it in spiritual matters he would not have been overlooked: for the facts of the truth are clearer than the sun. And wherever a man may go, he might easily lay hold of his own salvation, if he were minded, that is, to be heedful, and not to look on this as a by-work. For were the doings shut up into Palestine, or in a little corner of the world? Have you not heard the prophet say, "All shall know Me from the least even to the greatest?" [Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:11] Do not you see the things themselves uttering the truth? How then are these to be excused, seeing as they do the doctrine of the truth spread far and wide, and not troubling themselves, or caring to learn it? And do you require all this, it is asked, of a rude savage? Nay not of a rude savage only, but of any who is more savage than men of the present day. For why is it, pray, that in matters of this world he knows how to answer when he is wronged, and to resist when he has violence done him, and do and devise everything to prevent his ever having his will thwarted even in the slightest degree; but in spiritual concerns he has not used this same judgment? And when a man worships a stone, and thinks it a god, he both keeps feasts to it, and spends money on it, and shows much fear towards it, and in no case becomes listless from his simpleness. But when he has to seek to the very and true God, do you then mention singleness and simpleness to me? These things are not so, assuredly they are not! For the complaints are those of mere listlessness. For which do you think the most simple and rude, those in Abraham's day or those now? [Joshua 24:2] Clearly the former. And when that it was easiest to find religion out now or then? Clearly now. For now the Name of God is proclaimed even by all men, and the Prophets have preached, the things come to pass, the Gentiles been convinced. [Genesis 32:29; Judges 13:18] But at that day the majority were still in an uninstructed state, and sin was dominant. And there was no law to instruct, nor prophets, nor miracles, nor doctrine, nor multitude of men acquainted with it, nor anything else of the kind, but all things then lay as it were in a deep darkness, and a night moonless and stormy. And yet even then that wondrous and noble man, though the obstacles were so great, still knew God and practised virtue, and led many to the same zeal; and this though he had not even the wisdom of those without. For how should he, when there were no letters even yet invented? Yet still he brought his own share in, and God joined to bring in what was lacking to him. For you cannot say even this, that Abraham received his religion from his fathers, because he [Terah, see Joshua 24:2] was an idolater. But still, though he was from such forefathers and was uncivilized, and lived among uncivilized people, and had no instructor in religion, yet he attained to a knowledge of God, and in comparison with all his descendants, who had the advantage both of the Law and the Prophets, he was so much more illustrious as no words can express. Why was it then? It was because in things of this world he did not give himself any great anxiety, but in things of the spirit he applied his whole attention. (In Gen. Hom. 33, etc.) And what of Melchizedek? Was not he also born about those times, and was so bright as to be called even a priest of God? (In Gen. Hom. 35, 36.) For it is impossible in the extreme, that the sober-minded (νήφοντα) should ever be overlooked. And let not these things be a trouble to us, but knowing that it is the mind with which in each case the power lies, let us look to our own duties, that we may grow better. Let us not be demanding an account of God or enquire why He let such an one alone, but called such an one. For we are doing the same as if a servant that had given offense were to pry into his master's housekeeping. Wretched and miserable man, when you ought to be thoughtful about the account you have to give, and how you will reconcile your master, do you call him to account for things that you are not to give an account of, passing over those things of which you are to give a reckoning? What am I to say to the Gentile? He asks. Why, the same that I have been saying. And look not merely to what you shall say to the Gentile, but also to the means of amending yourself. When he is offended by examining into your life, then consider what you will say. For if he be offended, you will not be called to a reckoning for him, but if it be your way of life by which he is injured, you will have to undergo the greatest danger. When he sees you philosophizing about the kingdom, and fluttering at the things of this life, and at once afraid about hell, and trembling at the calamities of this life, then lay it to mind. When he sees this, and accuses you, and says, If you are in love with the Kingdom, how is it thou dost not look down upon the things of this life? If you are expecting the awful judgment, why do you not despise the terrors of this world? If you hope for immortality, why do you not think scorn of death? When he says this, be thou anxious what defense you will make. When he sees you trembling at the thought of losing your money, you that expectest the heavens, and exceedingly glad about a single penny, and selling your soul again for a little money, then lay it to mind. For these are the things, just these, that make the Gentiles stumble. And so, if you are thoughtful about his salvation, make your defense on these heads, not by words, but by actions. For it is not through that question that anybody ever blasphemed God, but through men's bad lives it is, that there are thousands of blasphemies in all quarters. Set him right then. For the Gentile will next ask you, How am I to know that God's commands are feasible? For thou that art of Christian extraction, and hast been brought up in this fine religion, dost not do anything of the kind. And what will you tell him? You will be sure to say, I will show you others that do; monks that dwell in the deserts. And are you not ashamed to confess to being a Christian, and yet to send to others, as unable to show that you display the temper of a Christian? For he also will say directly, What need have I to go to the mountains, and to hunt up the deserts? For if there is no possibility for a person who is living in the midst of cities to be a disciple, this is a sad imputation on this rule of conduct, that we are to leave the cities, and run to the deserts. But show me a man who has a wife, and children, and family, and yet pursues wisdom. What are we then to say to all this? Must we not hang down our heads, and be ashamed? For Christ gave us no such commandment; but what? "Let your light shine before men" [Matthew 5:16], not mountains, and deserts, and wildernesses, and out-of-the-way places. And this I say, not as abusing those who have taken up with the mountains, but as bewailing those that dwell in cities, because they have banished virtue from thence. Wherefore I beseech you let us introduce the discipline they have there here also, that the cities may become cities indeed. This will improve the Gentile. This will free him from countless offenses. And so if you would set him free from scandal, and yourself enjoy rewards without number, set your own life in order, and make it shine forth upon all sides, "that men may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." For so we also shall enjoy that unutterable and great glory, which God grant that we may all attain to, by the grace and love toward man, etc.

Source: Homily 26 on Romans
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:23
Once again, Paul shows what great harm people do if they force people to do things which go against their conscience. When a person does not feel sure or believe that something is clean, how can he do other than commit sin?

Source: HOMILIES ON ROMANS 26
[AD 418] Pelagius on Romans 14:23
Whatever destroys another is not of faith and is therefore sin.

Source: PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS
[AD 532] Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite on Romans 14:23
In this matter or not. And he that doubteth in the matter of meats, the apostle tells us, "is damned if he eat."
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on Romans 14:25-27
"Now to Him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and (manuscripts τε] which Sav. omits) by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, to Him be glory through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

It is always a custom with Paul to conclude his exhortation with prayers and doxologies. For he knows that the thing is one of no slight importance. And it is out of affectionateness and caution that he is in the habit of doing this. For it is the character of a teacher devoted to his children, and to God, not to instruct them in words only, but by prayer too to bring upon his teaching the assistance which is from God. And this he does here also. But the connection is as follows: "To Him that is of power to establish you, be glory forever. Amen." For he again clings to those weak brethren, and to them he directs his discourse. For when he was rebuking, he made all share his rebuke; but now, when he is praying, it is for these that he wears the attitude of a suppliant. And after saying, "to establish," he proceeds to give the mode of it, "according to my Gospel;" and this was what one would do to show that as yet they were not firmly fixed, but stood, though with wavering. Then to give a trustworthiness to what he says, he proceeds, "and the preaching of Jesus Christ;" that is, which He Himself preached. But if He preached it, the doctrines are not ours, but the laws are of Him. And afterwards, in discussing the nature of the preaching, He shows that this gift is one of much benefit, and of much honor; and this he first proves from the person of the declarer thereof, and then likewise from the things declared. For it was glad tidings. Besides, from His not having made anything of them known to any before us. And this he intimates in the words, "according to the revelation of the mystery." And this is a sign of the greatest friendliness, to make us share in the mysteries, and no one before us. "Which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest." For it had been determined long ago, but was only manifested now. How was it made manifest? "By the Scriptures of the Prophets." Here again he is releasing the weak person from fear. For what do you fear? Is it lest thou depart from the Law? This the Law wishes, this it foretold from of old. But if you pry into the cause of its being made manifest now, you are doing a thing not safe to do, in being curious about the mysteries of God, and calling Him to account. For we ought not with things of this nature to act as busybodies, but to be well pleased and content with them. Wherefore that he might himself put a check upon a spirit of this sort, he adds, "according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for the obedience of faith." For faith requires obedience, and not curiosity. And when God commands, one ought to be obedient, not curious. Then he uses another argument to encourage them, saying "made known to all nations." That is, it is not thou alone but the whole world that is of this Creed, as having had not man, but God for a Teacher. Wherefore also he adds, "through Jesus Christ." But it was not only made known, but also confirmed. Now both are His work. And on this ground too the way it is to be read is, "Now to Him that is of power to establish you through Jesus Christ;" and, as I was saying, he ascribes them both to Him; or rather, not both of these only, but the glory belonging (or ascribed, Gr. τὴν εἰς]) to the Father also. And this too is why he said, "to Whom be glory forever, Amen." And he uses a doxology again through awe at the incomprehensibleness of these mysteries. For even now they have appeared, there is no such thing as comprehending them by reasonings, but it is by faith we must come to a knowledge of them, for in no other way can we. He well says, "To the only wise God." For if you will only reflect how He brought the nations in, and blended them with those who in olden time had wrought well, how He saved those who were desperate, how He brought men not worthy of the earth up to heaven, and brought those who had fallen from the present life into that undying and unalterable life, and made those who were trampled down by devils to vie with Angels, and opened Paradise, and put a stop to all the old evils, and this too in a short time and by an easy and compendious way, then will you learn His wisdom — when you see that which neither Angels nor Archangels knew, they of the Gentiles learned on a sudden through Jesus. (2 manuscripts add "then will you know His power.") Right then is it to admire His wisdom, and to give Him glory! But you keep dwelling over little things, still sitting under the shadow. And this is not much like one that gives glory. For he who has no confidence in Him, and no trust in the faith, does not bear testimony to the grandeur of His doings. But he himself offers glory up in their behalf, in order to bring them also to the same zeal. But when you hear him say, "to the only wise God," think not that this is said in disparagement of the Son. For if all these things whereby His wisdom is made apparent were done [or made, see John 1:3] by Christ, and without Him no single one, it is quite plain that he is equal in wisdom also. What then is the reason of his saying "only?" To set Him in contrast with every created being. After giving the doxology then, he again goes from prayer to exhortation, directing his discourse against the stronger, and saying as follows:

Source: Homily 27 on Romans