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.

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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. ^[1] WHY ^[1]

Paul points out that the person in question here is not healthy and that he must be received be-cause 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.

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.

The weak were those who continued to observe the law.

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.

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.^[1] . . . 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.

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.^[1] 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.

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.^[1] 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.^[1] 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.^[2] 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.

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.

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;^[1] 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.^[2] A man either lives or dies according to his own master.

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.

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.

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. ^[1] CERTAIN ^[1]

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.

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

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.

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.

The man who fasts for God’s sake and not on account of other people observes the day for the Lord.^[1] 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.^[2]

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.^[1]

One who is living under the law cannot be living to Christ as well.

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

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

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.^[1] 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.^[2]

Second, 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,^[3] he persuades them by teaching them rather than by commanding them and by inviting them rather than by forcing them. Thus he was pleased to go even to the point of death, in order to leave an example of new life and a way of dying for those who want to die to sin and evil. Christ is therefore Lord of both the living and the dead—of the living, because he is the head of those who by the example of his resurrection look for a new and heavenly life here on earth, and of the dead, because these same people bear the death of Christ about in their bodies^[4] and mortify their members which are on earth.^[5]

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.

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.

The coming of Christ will find people alive and will bring the dead back to life.^[1] It does not matter whether he brings you back to life or finds you alive, as long as you appear righteous before him.

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 un-skilled 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.^[1]

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.

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?^[1] The Lord will judge our consciences to see with what sort of desire and intention we did what we did.

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

Paul addresses these words to the Jews.

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

For having been killed, the future Judge rose from the dead, and therefore he rightly said: As I live.^[1] . . . 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.

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

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.

If we ask the Lord to forgive us we should also forgive,^[1] 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.

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

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Nothing is unclean by nature, but it becomes so by the spirit in which a person uses it.

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.

Christ had said: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man but what comes out of the mouth—this defiles a man.^[1] This applies to food as well.

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.

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

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.^[1] 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

Just as there is no marriage in heaven,^[1] 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.

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.

By the kingdom of God Paul means the church, in which God reigns. ^[1] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: Here Paul shows clearly that the kingdom of heaven does not have corporeal food and drink but that everyone lives in a spiritual way there. ^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. ^[1] [PSEUDO-]CONSTANTIUS: In this passage Paul praises abstinence from meat and wine, but much more he warns us that we must abstain from food and drink which has been sacrificed to idols, so as not to cause scandal to our brother. ^[1]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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.

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.

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.^[1]

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? ^[1] ONE ^[1]

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