Homilies on Romans, Homily 26

“I know, and am convinced by (Gr. in) the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself, but if someone considers anything unclean, to that person it is unclean.” After first rebuking the person who judges his brother and urging him to stop reproaching him, he goes on to explain the doctrinal side more fully. He calmly instructs the weaker believers, showing great gentleness here too. For he does not say that the man will be punished, or anything like that, but simply relieves his fears about the matter, so that he will more readily accept what he tells him. He says, “I know, and am convinced.” Then, to keep anyone who did not trust him (or “believe,” τὥν οὐ πιστὥν) from saying, “What does it matter to us if you are convinced? Your testimony is not trustworthy enough to outweigh so great a law and oracles delivered from above,” he continues, “in the Lord.” That is, I have learned from Him, and my confidence comes from Him. This judgment, then, does not come from the human mind. What are you convinced of, and what do you know? Tell us. “That nothing is unclean in itself.” Nothing, he says, is unclean by nature; it becomes so because of the attitude with which someone uses it. So it becomes unclean only to that person, not to everyone. “For if someone considers anything unclean, to that person it is unclean.” What then? Why not correct your brother, so that he will not think it unclean? Why not use your full authority to turn him away from this attitude and understanding, so that he will never regard it as common? My reason, he says, is that I am afraid of grieving him. That is why he continues, Ver. 15. “But if your brother is grieved by your food, you are no longer walking in love.” You see how far his affection for the man leads him for now. He shows that he values him so highly that, to avoid grieving him, he does not venture even to command things of great urgency. Instead, he would rather draw him to himself through accommodation and love. For even after relieving his fears, he does not drag him along or force him, but leaves him free to decide. Keeping someone from certain foods is nothing compared with overwhelming someone with grief. You see how strongly he insists on love. This is because he knows that it can accomplish everything. On this basis he makes a somewhat greater demand on them. Far from its being right for them to distress you at all, he says, they should, if necessary, even be willing to accommodate you. That is why he goes on to say, “Do not destroy with your food someone for whom Christ died.” Do you not value your brother enough even to buy his salvation at the price of giving up certain foods? Christ did not refuse to become a slave or even to die for him, but you will not even give up food to save him. And despite all this, Christ was not going to win everyone, yet He still died for everyone, doing His own part. But you know that through food you are ruining him in more important matters, and still you argue? Do you consider someone who receives such care from Christ so worthless, and dishonor someone He loves? Yet He died not only for the weak, but even for an enemy. And will you not even give up certain foods for someone who is weak? Christ did even the greatest thing, but you will not do even the lesser thing. And He was the Master; you are a brother. These words were enough to silence him. For they show that he is small-minded and, after receiving great things from God, will not give even little things in return. Ver. 16, 17. “Then do not let your good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not food and drink.” By their “good,” he means here either their faith, their hope of rewards in the life to come, or the maturity of their religious life. His meaning is that you not only fail to benefit your brother, but also cause the doctrine itself, the grace of God, and His gift to be spoken of as evil. When you fight, quarrel, cause trouble, divide the Church, reproach your brother, and keep your distance from him, outsiders will speak evil of you. So this produces the very opposite of good. For your good is love, love for the brotherhood, unity, being bound together, living in peace, and living with gentleness (ἐπιεικείας). Again, to put an end to one man's fears and the other's arguing, he says, “For the kingdom of God is not food and drink.” Is it through these things, he means, that we gain approval? As he says elsewhere too, “We are no better if we eat, and no worse if we do not eat.” He needs no proof, but is content simply to state it. What he means is this: If you eat, does that lead you to the Kingdom? This is why, to make fun of how very pleased they were with themselves over this, he said not only “food,” but “drink.” What, then, does bring us there? “Righteousness, and peace, and joy”: a virtuous life, peace with our brothers (which this quarreling opposes), and the joy that comes from unity, which this reproaching destroys. But he said this to both parties, not just one, because the time was right to address them both. Then, since he had mentioned peace and joy, but people can also find peace and joy in evil actions, he adds, “in the Holy Spirit.” For someone who ruins his brother has at once overthrown peace and injured joy more seriously than someone who steals money. Worse still, Another saved him, and you injure and ruin him. Since eating and this supposedly mature condition do not produce these virtues, but do produce things that undermine them, how can it be anything but right to attach little importance to small things in order to establish great ones firmly? Then, because this reproaching was partly prompted by vanity, he goes on to say, Ver. 18. “For anyone who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by people.” People will not admire you for your maturity as much as everyone will admire you for peace and friendship. For the latter is a beautiful thing that benefits everyone, while the former benefits no one at all. Ver. 19. “So let us pursue the things that make for peace, and the things by which we may build one another up.” The first part applies to the weaker man, so that he may become peaceable. But the second applies to the stronger man too, so that he may not destroy his brother. Still, by saying “one another,” he has once again applied both parts to each of them, showing that without peace it is not easy to build anyone up. Ver. 20. “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” He gives this name to a brother's salvation, greatly heightening their fears and showing that the man is doing the opposite of what he wants. For far from building up, as you intend, he says, you are actually destroying—and destroying a building made by God, not by man, and for no great purpose, but for something trivial. For it was “for the sake of food,” he says. Then, so that so much accommodation will not confirm the weaker brother in his mistaken view, he returns to doctrine as follows: “All things are indeed pure, but it is wrong for someone to eat against his conscience.” That is, someone who does it with a troubled conscience. So if you force him and he eats, nothing will have been gained. For it is not eating that makes someone unclean, but the intention with which he eats. If you do not set that right, everything you have done is pointless, and you have made things worse. For thinking something unclean is not as bad as tasting it while thinking it unclean. Here, then, you are making two mistakes: one by strengthening his prejudice through your quarreling, and another by getting him to taste what is unclean. So, as long as you have not persuaded him, do not force him. Ver. 21. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.” Again, he asks for the greater response: they should not only avoid forcing him, but even accommodate him. For he often did this himself, as when he circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), when he had his hair cut (ib. xviii. 18), and when he offered that Jewish sacrifice. (ib. xxi. 26, see p. 126). He does not tell the man, “Do this,” but presents it as a general principle, again to avoid making the other man, the weaker one, too complacent. And what does he say? “It is good not to eat flesh.” And why do I mention flesh? If it is wine, or anything else of that kind that causes offense, give it up. For nothing is as important as your brother's salvation. Christ shows us this, since He came from Heaven and suffered everything He went through for our sakes. And please notice how he also presses the point upon the other man with the words “stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.” Do not tell me, he means, that the man has no reason to react this way; consider that you have the power to set it right. For his weakness gives him enough of a claim to your help, and this would cost you nothing, since it is a matter of building him up and wise accommodation, not hypocrisy (Gal. ii. 13). For if you force him, he is immediately destroyed, will condemn you, and will become still more determined not to eat. But if you accommodate him, he will love you, will not distrust you as a teacher, and afterward you will be able to plant the right views in him without his noticing. But if he once comes to hate you, you have closed the door to your reasoning. So do not compel him; even give it up yourself for his sake, abstaining because it offends him, not because it is unclean, and he will love you all the more. This is also Paul's advice when he says, “It is good not to eat flesh”: because the brother is offended and weak, not because it is unclean. Ver. 22. “Do you have faith? Keep it to yourself.” Here, it seems to me, he is gently warning the more advanced believers against vanity. What he means is this: Do you want to show me that you are mature and fully equipped? Do not show me; let your conscience be enough. By faith here he means faith concerning the matter at hand, not faith concerning doctrines. For of the latter it says, “Confessing with the mouth leads to salvation” (Rom. x. 10); and, “Whoever denies Me before people, I will also deny.” (Luke ix. 26.) Failure to confess that faith ruins us; confessing this faith at the wrong time does the same. “Happy is the person who does not condemn himself in what he approves.” Again he challenges the weaker man and gives him (i.e. the stronger) a crown in his own conscience that is reward enough. Even if no one sees you, that is, you can be happy within yourself. For after saying, “Keep it to yourself,” he tells him that this is better for him than the world's approval, so that he will not consider this an insignificant tribunal. Even if everyone accuses you, if you do not condemn yourself and your conscience brings no charge against you, you are happy. But he did not make this statement about absolutely everyone. For many people do not condemn themselves and yet are great transgressors; these are the most miserable people of all. He is still keeping to the matter at hand. Ver. 23. “And anyone who doubts is condemned if he eats.” Again, he says this to urge the stronger man to spare the weaker. For what good is it if the man eats while doubting and condemns himself? For I approve of someone who both eats and does so without doubting. See how he encourages him not merely to eat, but to eat with a good conscience too. Then he also gives the reason why the man is condemned, continuing with these words: “Because he does not eat from faith.” Because it does not come from faith, not because it is unclean. For he did not believe it was clean, but touched it even though he thought it unclean. By this he also shows them how much harm they do by compelling people, without persuading them, to touch things they had previously considered unclean, so that for this reason at least they might stop reproaching them. “For whatever does not come from faith is sin.” For when someone is unsure and does not believe that something is clean, how can he help sinning? Now Paul has said all this about the matter at hand, not about everything. And notice how careful he is not to cause anyone to stumble. He had said earlier, “If your brother is grieved by your food, you are no longer walking in love.” But if you should not grieve him, much less should you cause him to stumble. And again, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” For if tearing down a Church is a grievous act of wickedness, tearing down the spiritual Temple is much more so. A person has greater dignity than a Church, since Christ died for these temples, not for walls. So let us watch our conduct in every respect and never give anyone even the slightest grounds for criticism. For this present life is a racecourse, and we ought to have thousands of eyes (Hilary in Ps. cxix.) looking in every direction, without even imagining that ignorance will be an adequate excuse. For people can indeed be punished for ignorance when their ignorance is inexcusable. The Jews too were ignorant, but their ignorance was not excusable. The Gentiles were ignorant as well, but they are without excuse. (Rom. i. 20.) For when you are ignorant of things that cannot be known, you will not face any charge for it; but when you are ignorant of things that are easy and possible to know, you will be punished with the greatest severity. On the other hand, if we are not utterly negligent, but do everything we can, God will also extend His hand to us in the things we do not know. This is what Paul also said to the Philippians: “If you think differently about anything, God will reveal even this to you.” (Phil. iii. 15.) But when we are unwilling to do even what lies within our power, we will not receive His help in this either. This was also the case with the Jews. “For this reason,” He says, “I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see.” (Matt. xiii. 13.) In what sense did they see without seeing? They saw demons cast out and said, “He has a demon.” They saw the dead raised and did not worship, but tried to kill Him. Cornelius was not like this. (ib. xii. 24.) So, because he was sincerely doing his whole duty, God also supplied what he lacked. Then do not say, “Why did God neglect this or that man who was sincere (ἄπλαστος) and good, although a Gentile?” For in the first place, no one can possibly know for certain whether someone is sincere except Him who “formed (πλάσαντι) their hearts individually.” (Ps. xxxiii. 15, LXX.) And there is also this to say: perhaps (πολλάκις) such a man was neither thoughtful nor earnest. “And how,” someone may ask, “could he be, when he was so uninformed? (ἄπλαστος.)” Please consider this simple, sincere man, then, and observe him in everyday affairs. You will see him as a model of the greatest care and precision. If he had shown the same care in spiritual matters, he would not have been overlooked, for the facts of the truth are clearer than the sun. Wherever someone may go, he could easily take hold of his own salvation if he were willing to pay attention and not treat it as a side concern. Were these events confined to Palestine, or to some little corner of the world? Have you not heard the prophet say, “All will know Me, from the least to the greatest”? (Jer. xxxi. 34; Heb. viii. 11.) Do you not see the facts themselves proclaiming the truth? How, then, can these people be excused when they see the teaching of the truth spread far and wide, yet will not trouble themselves or care to learn it? “And do you demand all this,” someone asks, “of an uncultured savage?” Yes, and even of anyone more savage than people today. For why, tell me, does he know in worldly matters how to answer when he is wronged, resist when violence is done to him, and do and devise everything to keep his wishes from being thwarted in even the slightest way, yet has not used this same judgment in spiritual concerns? When someone worships a stone and thinks it a god, he holds festivals for it, spends money on it, and shows great fear toward it; his simplicity never makes him careless. But when he needs to seek the true God Himself, do you bring up his innocence and simplicity to me? That is not how things stand—certainly not! For these complaints come from sheer negligence. Which people do you think were simpler and more uncultured: those in Abraham's day or those of today? (Josh. xxiv. 2.) Clearly the former. And when was it easier to discover religion, now or then? Clearly now. For now God's Name is proclaimed by everyone, the Prophets have preached, the events have taken place, and the Gentiles have been convinced. (Gen. xxxii. 29; Judges xiii. 18.) But in those days most people were still uninstructed, and sin ruled. There was no law to teach them, no prophets, no miracles, no doctrine, no large body of people acquainted with it, or anything else of the kind. Everything lay, as it were, in deep darkness, in a moonless, stormy night. Yet even then that wonderful and noble man, despite such great obstacles, knew God, practiced virtue, and led many to share his zeal, even though he did not have the wisdom of outsiders. For how could he, when writing had not even been invented yet? Still, he did his part, and God worked with him to supply what he lacked. For you cannot even say that Abraham received his religion from his fathers, because he (Terah, see Josh. xxiv. 2.) was an idolater. Yet although he came from such ancestors, was uncivilized, lived among uncivilized people, and had no teacher of religion, he came to know God. Compared with all his descendants, who had the benefit of both the Law and the Prophets, he was more distinguished than words can express. Why was this? Because he did not worry much about worldly things, but devoted his whole attention to spiritual things. (In Gen. Hom. 33, etc.) And what about Melchizedek? Was he not also born around that time, and so outstanding that he was even called a priest of God? (In Gen. Hom. 35, 36.) For it is utterly impossible for the vigilant (νήφοντα) ever to be overlooked. Let these things not trouble us. Instead, knowing that in each case the decisive power lies in the mind, let us attend to our own duties so that we may become better. Let us not demand an account from God or ask why He left one person alone but called another. For we are acting like a servant who has offended his master and then pries into how his master manages his household. Wretched, miserable man! When you should be thinking about the account you must give and how to regain your master's favor, do you call him to account for things you will not have to answer for, while overlooking the things you must account for? “What am I to say to the Gentile?” someone asks. Why, the same things I have been saying. And consider not merely what you will say to the Gentile, but also how to reform yourself. When he examines your life and stumbles because of it, then consider what you will say. For if he stumbles, you will not be held accountable for him; but if your way of life harms him, you will face the greatest danger. When he sees you discussing the kingdom while getting excited over the things of this life, fearing hell while also trembling at the troubles of this life, then take it to heart. When he sees this and accuses you, saying, “If you love the Kingdom, why do you not look down on the things of this life? If you expect the terrifying judgment, why do you not scorn this world's terrors? If you hope for immortality, why do you not scorn death?”—when he says this, worry about what defense you will make. When he sees you, who expect the heavens, trembling at the thought of losing your money, overjoyed at a single penny, and once again selling your soul for a little money, then take it to heart. For these are the things, precisely these, that make the Gentiles stumble. So if you care about his salvation, defend yourself on these points through actions, not words. For no one has ever blasphemed God because of that question, but people's evil lives cause thousands of blasphemies everywhere. Set yourself right, then. For the Gentile will next ask you, “How am I to know that God's commands can be carried out? For you, who come from a Christian family and were brought up in this fine religion, do nothing of the kind.” And what will you tell him? You will surely say, “I will show you others who do: monks living in the deserts.” Are you not ashamed to profess yourself a Christian and yet send him to others, as though you cannot show that you display a Christian's character? For he too will immediately say, “Why do I need to go to the mountains and search the deserts? If someone living in a city cannot be a disciple, this is a serious charge against this way of life: that we must leave the cities and run to the deserts. Show me a man who has a wife, children, and a household, and still pursues wisdom.” What, then, are we to say to all this? Must we not hang our heads in shame? For Christ gave us no such command. What did He say? “Let your light shine before people” (Matt. v. 16)—not mountains, deserts, wildernesses, and remote places. I say this not to criticize those who have settled in the mountains, but to mourn for those living in cities, because they have banished virtue from them. So I beg you, let us bring the discipline they practice there here as well, so that the cities may truly become cities. This will improve the Gentile. This will free him from countless causes of stumbling. So if you want to free him from stumbling and enjoy countless rewards yourself, put your own life in order and let it shine in every direction, “so that people may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” For in this way we too will enjoy that indescribable and great glory. May God grant that we may all attain it, by the grace and love for humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, and honor, now and always, forever and ever. Amen.