ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN tween day and day, and another judges every day; let every man abound in his own sense. He that regards the day regards it unto the Lord. And he that eats, eats unto the Lord, for he gives thanks to God. And he that eats not, to the Lord he eats not and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and rose again that he might be lord both of the dead and of the living. But you, why judge you your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Therefore every one of us shall render account to God for himself. Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this, rather, that you put not a stumbling block or a scandal in your brother's way. (Rom. 14:1- "Weak" must here not be understood in the sense of "impotent" as in the passage of the following chapter where "the infirmities of the weak," i.e., impotent, are mentioned, but in the sense of feebleness which is the opposite of health or well-being. (For example: over against a man a boy is impotent but not feeble. The first word must be understood as a relative or transitive word but the second one must be taken absolutely.) Thus, if, in this letter, the apostle calls some weak and some strong in faith, he thinks of the weak as those who are anxious-mindedla or still somehow under the influence of superstition and who therefore believe that they must do something which in reality they are not required to do at all. We should note, however, that he does not speak on behalf of those who choose to hang on to superstition but on behalf of those who are still superstitious because of the weakness of their faith and who because of this are not yet in the state of salvation but close to it, so that they must be nourished and fed in order that they can reach their goal. Hence, he admonishes Titus: "Speak the things that become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1); "the sound word that cannot be blamed" (Titus 2:2); "so that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine" (Titus 2:9).
He says all this in opposition to that Jewish superstition which some of the false apostles taught by making a distinction between several kinds of food and between the days of the week. It is these he has in mind as he says in Titus 1:10, 13: "For there are many vain talkers and deceivers, especially they who are of the circumcision. . . . Wherefore rebuke them sharply that they may be
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS sound in faith." And in I Tim. 1:3 ff. he writes: "That you may charge some not to teach otherwise and not to give heed to Jewish fables. For the end of the commandment is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unfeigned faith. From which things some going astray are turned aside unto vain babbling, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say nor whereof they affirm." And in the same manner, he writes in Gal. 4:8 ff.: "How turn you again to the weak and needy elements which you desire to serve again? You observe days, and months, and times, and years. I fear that I have labored in vain among you."
And much more clearly he writes in Col. 2:16 fE.: "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or the new moon, or the Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Let no man seduce you, willing in humility and in worship of angels, walking in the things he has not seen, in vain puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the head from which the whole body, being supplied with nourishment and knit together through the joints and bands, grows unto the increase of God. If, then, you be dead with Christ from the elements of the world, why do you subject yourselves to ordinances as though living in the world? Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are unto destruction by the very use, according to the precepts and doctrines of men; which things have indeed a show of wisdom in superstition and humility, and severity to the body, but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." Also in I Cor. 8:1 ff. and 10:6 ff., he gives a full discussion of the thoughts he expresses in the chapter before us.
What the apostle means to say, then, is that in the new law everything is free and nothing necessary for those who believe in Christ, but that love is enough for them, a love, as he says, "from a pure heart and good conscience and unfeigned faith" (I Tim. 1:5). And in Gal. 6:15 he says: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature and the observance of the commandment of God."2 And our Lord himself says in the Gospel: "The Kingdom of God comes not with observation; neither shall they say: Behold here or behold there. For lo, the Kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20 f.) And in Matt.
24:11, 26, he says: "There shall arise many false prophets and false Christs and they shall seduce many.... If, therefore, they shall say to you: Behold, he is in the desert, go not out; Behold, he is in the closets, believe it not." (And in Isa., ch. 66, at the end of the chapter, it is written: "There shall be month after month and Sabbath after Sabbath." [Isa. 66:23]. And in the first chapter he says: "I 2 The passage of Galatians is combined with I Cor. 7:19.
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN will not abide your new moons and your solemnities." [Isa. 1:13 f.] In this whole book there are many such sayings.)
For it does not belong to the new law to set aside some days and not others for fasting, as it was done by the law of Moses. Nor does it belong to the new law to select certain kinds of food and distinguish them from others, for example, meats, eggs, etc., as, again, the law of Moses does (Lev. 11:4 ft; Deut. 14:7 ft.). Nor does it belong to the new law to designate certain days and not others as holidays. Nor does it belong to the new law to build such and such churches and to adorn them thus and so and to sing in them in one way or another. Nor are organs, altar decorations, chalices, or pictures required, and whatever else we now find in the houses of worship. Finally, it is not necessary that priests and monks wear tonsures and that they walk about in special habits as they did in the old law. All these things are mere shadows and tokens of reality; indeed, they are childish things. On the contrary, every day is a holiday, every kind of food is permitted, every place is sacred, every time is suitable for fasting, every garment is allowed. Everything is free as long as there is practiced in it moderation and love and whatever else the apostle teaches.
Many false apostles have preached against this liberty which the apostle proclaims. They tried to induce the people to observe all those laws as if they were necessary to salvation. But the apostle opposed them with amazing zeal.
What is the upshot of all this? Shall we now confirm the heresy of the Picards?3 For they adopted this rule. Shall we say that all churches, and all the ornaments in them, all the holy offices that are celebrated in them, all fast days and all feast days, and finally all the distinctions between priests, bishops, and monks regarding their rank, habits, and ceremonies, observed as they have been for so many centuries to this very day, and also all the many monasteries and foundations, the benefices and the prebends—shall we say that all these must be abolished? This is what the Picards do because, so they maintain, this is what the liberty of the new law requires.
God forbid! For if one were to understand the apostle in this way, the immediate consequence would be that one would raise the following objection to his teaching: therefore, "let us do evil that there may come good'1 (Rom. 3:8); let us stop doing good; we shall get to heaven without having to lift a finger. It is obvious that one can draw this conclusion. For if the apostle did reject all these works we have just enumerated, all other works must likewise
3 The Picardi were the most radical group of the Hussites. (Cf. A.R.G. 31
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS be rejected. For none of them is necessary to salvation. This is proved by the fact that infants and children, and also the sick or prisoners or poor people do not need or are not able to do these works of piety, at least not all of them. Indeed, nobody needs to or can do them all, but it is sufficient that one has "love from a pure heart," etc., as was stated before.
Over against this there stands the statement of the apostle himself, in I Tim. 5:12, 11, that certain widows "have damnation because they made void their first faith" and wanted to marry.
Hence, they had to remain widows ("because they had grown wanton in Christ," i.e., sumptuous and fat). And, in the Gospel, our
Lord said even of the smallest things: "These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone" (Matt. 23:23; Luke
11:42). And in Jer. 35:5 ff. he highly commends the house of the Rechabites because they did not drink wine and did not build houses, indeed, because they obeyed their father Jonadab in these things. And the apostle himself circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), offered sacrifices, and purified himself in the Temple (Acts 21:26).
We reply to the objection as follows:
It is true that according to the new law none of all these things is necessary, but this does not mean that because one does not have to do one thing, he is free to do the opposite or something else. But, as Hilary says:4 "One must understand a statement in the light of the occasion that called it forth." Now the apostle speaks against the Jews and their kind who taught that the observance of the law was necessary in the sense that without it even the faith in Christ was not sufficient for salvation. Hence, according to Acts 15:1, they said even to believers who were already baptized in Christ: "Except you be baptized after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved." And a little farther on, it is written that they said: "They must be circumcised and they must chiefly observe the law of Moses." (Acts i5:5-)5 The same meaning is implied in Paul's question to Peter, according to Gal. 2:14: "How do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" In other words: you compel them to believe, i.e., it is you who make them believe, that it is necessary for salvation that they abstain from the food of the Gentiles. (In the same chapter we read that "neither Titus, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised" [Gal. 2:3].)
The same meaning is implied in the word "to judge" which he uses several times in this same passage. For whoever judges some4 Hilary, De trin., IV, 14.
5 The text of the Vulgate that Luther had before him read:"Oportet eos circumcidi et PRACIPUE [chiefly, instead of PRAECIPERE (and commanded)] servare legem Mosis" (Acts 15:5).
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN §83 one else certainly believes that the one he condemns is doing something that goes against salvation and that he must therefore change his ways. So then, in the absence of this weakness of faith and of this superstitious belief, everyone is allowed, within the limits of the vow he has made, to observe even the whole law, indeed all commandments. In this sense, the early church was for a long time permitted to use the Jewish ceremonies. Blessed Augustine had a long controversy with Blessed Jerome about this, according to his letters 8; 9; 10; and 19.6
Therefore, as it was foolish then to regard these things as so weighty that one made salvation dependent upon them, meanwhile neglecting faith and love which alone are sufficient for eternal life (this was highly repugnant to Christ; hence he said:
"You strain out the gnats and swallow the camel" [Matt. 23:24]), so it is foolish and preposterous also today and at any time to identify the Christian religion outwardly with this ostentatious display which (according to the modern custom) is practiced by the observance of distinctions between feast days, food, habits, and places while, in the meantime, the commandments of God and faith and love are utterly disregarded.
Although all this is now completely free, anyone may, nevertheless, for the sake of the love of God, bind himself by a vow to this or that. But now he is bound to it, not by reason of the new law, but by reason of the law that he has taken upon himself for the sake of his love of God, For who is so stupid as to deny that anyone can give up his liberty in deference to someone else and make himself a slave and bind himself to this or that place or to such and such a day or to such and such a type of work! Only he must have done this out of love and in such a faith that he is confident that he does not do it because it is necessary for salvation but from a spontaneous will and out of a sense of liberty.
Everything, therefore, is free, but it can be given up by a vow for love's sake. (Where this has actually occurred, one is bound to it not because of what one has vowed to do but because of the voluntary character of the vow. Hence, he must take care that he keeps his vow with the same love out of which he promised that he would keep it. Without this love the vow cannot be kept. For if it is kept without love, i.e., against one's will, it would be better not to make any vow. For one who does this is like a man who makes a vow and does not keep it; he keeps it outwardly but in his heart he has made reservations; he commits a sacrilege because he does not voluntarily keep his vow. This is why there are many
6 This numbering is that of the older editions (e.g., Liber epistolarum beati Augustini, Basel, 1493). For us, the reference is to Letters 28, 40, 75, 82.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS apostates who outwardly cannot be recognized as such.) However, if one disregards love and directs his attention now to these and then to those commandments because he considers them necessary for salvation, as it now happens everywhere among priests and monks and even among secular people who are preoccupied with their statutes and human doctrines—then we have certainly returned to the Jewish superstition and restored the Mosaic servitude, especially if we do all this by forcing ourselves to do it and in the belief that there is no salvation apart from these works and that salvation can be achieved only through them.
But then what about the general rules of the church, the fasts and the feast days? We answer this question as follows: What has been imposed upon us by the ancient consensus of the whole church and from the love of God and for adequate reasons must certainly be kept, not because any of it is necessary and unchangeable but because the obedience is necessary which for love's sake we owe to God and the church. Nevertheless, the higher clergy should see to it that they issue as few rules as possible, and, with a view to changing them, they should watch out where, how, and to what extent they further or hinder love. (For example, when they fill the houses of worship with much noise and let the organs resound and when they have celebrated mass with every conceivable pomp and circumstance, they believe that they did good thereby so that, by comparison, they regard any help that was given to the poor as if it were nothing.) Moreover, nobody cares whether perjury, lies, or slanders are committed, even on holidays. But if somebody eats meat or eggs on the sixth day of the week, people are stunned. This is how silly almost everyone has become nowadays.7 Hence, today the fast days and the many holidays should be abolished. For the common people make it a point of conscience to observe them, in the belief that there is no salvation without them.
But, nevertheless, almost everyone acts against this very voice of conscience, again and again. The people have come to hold this foolish belief because the preaching of the true word has been neglected so that nowadays they once more need the apostles in order to learn what true religion is.
Thus it would also be useful to purge and change almost the whole book of decretals and to reduce the pomp and even more the ritual of the prayer services and of the ecclesiastical vestments. For every day these things become more and more lavish, and faith and love decline proportionately, and greed, pride, and vainglory
7 The sentences here put in parentheses were written by Luther on the margins of his sheets. They should be read not as organic parts of the argument, but as notes.
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN are being fostered and, what is worse, people hope to be saved by it all and are no longer concerned about the inner man.
Is it, then, a good thing to become a monk nowadays? My answer is this: If you think that you cannot obtain salvation in any other way than by becoming a monk, do not go into the cloister.
For what the proverb says is only too true: "Despair makes a monk/' or rather, not a monk but a devil. He that puts on the cowl from sheer desperation will never be a good monk, but only he that does this for love's sake: seeing how great his sins are and wanting to bring God a great sacrifice by love, he voluntarily gives up his liberty, puts on that foolish garb, and subjects himself to degrading duties.
Hence, I think that to become a monk is a better thing today than it has been for the last two hundred years, and for this reason: up to now the monks drew away from the cross and it was something glorious to be a monk. But now people begin to dislike them again, even the good ones among them, on account of their foolish garb. For this is what it means to be a monk: to be detested by the world and to let oneself be taken for a fool. He that out of love submits to this kind of treatment does very well indeed. It does not scare me at all that the bishops and priests persecute us. This had to happen. But what displeases me is that we give them such a poor reason to dislike us.
Moreover, those who detest the monks for no reason at all but from mere prejudice are the best friends the friars have in the world. For the monks should be glad if they fulfill their vow by letting themselves be despised and put to shame for having taken this very vow for God's sake, for they wear their foolish garb in order to induce everyone to despise them. But nowadays they behave quite differently. They give only the appearance of being monks.
But I know in my heart that they would be the happiest men if they had love, and that they could feel more blessed than the hermits did that were in the desert, because of the fact that they are exposed to the cross and to daily disgrace. But alas! today there is no more arrogant class of people than they are!
But to return to the text: the apostle desires above all that the weak in faith should be tolerated and instructed by the strong and also that the weak should not make rash judgments. In this way he admonishes them to peace and unity. For although a weak faith does not suffice for salvation, as the Galatians show, weak believers must nevertheless be supported until they become strong, and one must not let them stay weak because one detests them and is concerned only for one's own salvation. (The apostle exemplified this
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS teaching not only generally in his relations with men but particularly in his attitude toward the Galatians: he sent them a letter that he had written with his own hand.) Hence, the word "take on"
("assumite") means in Greek "join yourselves together with/'8
When therefore the apostle writes: "Join yourselves together with him who is weak in faith," he means to say: You must not reject him because you dislike him and leave him to himself, but you must draw him to yourselves and strengthen him until he too is whole. But if, instead, you despise him as if he were worthless, be on your guard lest God himself puts him on his feet. So then, he says to both of them: The strong should instruct the weak and the weak should let themselves be instructed; then peace and love will prevail among them both.
Not in disputes about thoughts. (Rom 14:1.) This is not an entirely suitable translation. Where our version9 says "in disputes," the Greek text has "in making distinctions."10
Where our text says "thoughts," the Greek version has "dialogis* mon."11 This is more appropriate and means "making a decision" and "weighing reasons," in the sense of the phrase of Rom. 1:21:
"They became vain in their thoughts," i.e., in what we commonly call "motives" and "reasons." The apostle means to say, therefore, that no one should judge another's decisions and reasons by which he is moved in this way or that. For a strong man has his own opinion and is moved by reasons of his own, and similarly a weak person has his own opinion. Hence, he says a little farther down:
"Let every man abound in his own sense" (Rom. 14:5); in other words: leave him in peace and let him be content with his own motives or, to put the matter more plainly, let him stay firmly put in what his conscience directs him to do.
But this does not mean that nowadays we should tolerate these superstitious practices of religion or rather this show of piety12 on the assumption that they are due to a weakness of faith, for, as a matter of fact, people perpetuate them from crass ignorance.
They do not know that they themselves must first be changed, and not their works.
Yet the apostle admonishes the Galatians that "they should not 8 Proslambanesthe. Cf. Erasmus, Annot.
10 "In diiudicationibus"
11 Erasmus explains the word dialogismon (which occurs also in Romt 1:21) as follows: "Non simplex cogitatio, sed cogitatio ratiocinantis et expendentis et diudicantis" ("not thought as such, but the thought of one who reasons, weighs, and makes distinctions").
12 "Superstitiosas istas pietates, immo species pietatis."
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN make this liberty an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. 5:13), as they do now in Rome where they no longer care about rules; for these are all swallowed up by dispensations. In the use of this kind of liberty they are masters. Completely disregarding the other commandments of the apostle, they use this liberty as "an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. 5:13) and as "a cloak for malice" (I Peter 2:16). They say that they are not bound by any rules, and this it true. But oh, how many would enter the monastic life or other spiritual professions today if they knew about this liberty? Indeed, how many would only too gladly give up their ceremonies, prayers, and rules if only the pope would annul them as he has the power to do! This is an indication of the fact that nowadays practically all fulfill their vocations13 reluctantly and without love. If there are some who fulfill their responsiblity, they do so from fear, so that they put their trust in the miserable cross of their conscience that forces them to do their duty.
But perhaps God wants us today to be so bound to the various orders, and rules, and statutes that he may at least compel us to come in (Luke 14:23).
But if the liberty of which the apostle speaks should again be granted to us, that is to say, if fasts, prayers, compliance with ordinances, church services, etc., would be left to everyone's free decision and conscience so that he could do as much as the love of God would impel him to do, I believe that then all churches would be closed and all altars deserted within one year. And yet, if everything were as it should be, we should be engaged in all this as though we wanted to serve God freely and gladly and not from fear of conscience or punishment, nor in expectation of pay and honor.
For example, if the mandate were issued that, unless he wanted to, no priest would need to be without a wife, or wear a tonsure, or be dressed in a special habit, or be obliged to say the canonical hours, how many would there be, I ask you, who would choose the way of life they now observe? What would they do if, as the saying goes, they would let their conscience decide?14 And yet it is precisely this that ought to be done: it should be left to everyone's free decision that he do as much or as little as his responsibility to God would allow him to do.
You will say: Who, then, would not want to be a priest? And I answer: By speaking as you do, you show plainly that you want liberty as an occasion to the flesh. You are in servitude against your will and you do not deserve any reward before God!
13 "Agunt in suis vocationibus" (!). u "Nonne sicut dicitur: Wens bis auf die conscientz kumpti"
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS I fear that we shall all perish shortly. For who obeys this rule?
And what about the people? What would they give if they were free to give what they would want to give? They are equally as foolish as anyone, for they prefer to make their contributions to hired servants, who must be compelled to do what they do, rather than to brothers who are free.
Therefore examine yourself closely when you say your prayers, when you make your sacrifice, when you enter the choir or when you do whatever else you have to do, whether you would do the same also if you had a free choice about it—and you will find out who you are before God. If you would not, if you would rather be free and untonsured, then what you are doing now is worth nothing, because you are only a slave and a hireling. (John 10:12 f.)
However, I know of some who, inasmuch as they are aware of this, sit down in some corner and say to themselves: I shall arouse in me a "good intention" and a will if this is what is required. Meanwhile the devil standing behind him laughs in his sleeve and says:
Primp yourself, little kitten, here comes company!15 Then he gets up, goes into the choir to pray, and says: O little owl, how beautiful you are! Where did you get the peacock feathers?16 If I did not know (to use the language of the fable)17 that you are an ass, I should think you were a lion—that is how you roar; but go on, wear your lion's skin: your long ears will betray you! Thereupon he gets bored and counts the pages and verses of his prayer book, wondering whether the prayer is almost over, and consoling18 himself he says: Scotus19 proved that a 'Virtual intention" is enough and that an actual intention is not required. Then the devil says to him: Fine! You are right! Now you can feel secure!
O God, what a laughingstock we are to our enemies! A good intention is not so easy as that! And (good God!) it is not in your power, O man, to arouse it in yourself as Scotus and the Scotists teach to our very great detriment. It is utterly pernicious for us to 15 Luther uses a German proverb: "Schmug dich, libs Ketzle, wir werden gesste haben" ("Schmuck' dich, liebes Kdtzchen, wir werden Ga'ste haben").
16 Here too, Luther uses a proverb (in this case derived from the well-known fable of the raven [or owl] and the fox). He has the devil (who is playing the monk) say, "Sih, aulichen, wie schon bistu, hastu nu pfawenfedern?"
("Sieh, kleine Eule, wie schon du bist! Hast du nun Pfauenfedernf").
Ficker (p. 500, n. 23) suggests that Luther was perhaps thinking of a decorative design that the German printers of his time were using on the title pages of some of their books. It shows an owl that is being pecked by other birds. The design often carried the description: "All birds hate me"
("Mich hassen alle Vogel").
« Cf..Aesop, Fab. 141.
!8 "Sibique consolator factus dicit." i» Cf. Duns Scotus, IV Sent., d. 6, q. 6, n. 2.
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN presume that we can form "good intentions" from ourselves as if we were capable of putting anything together in our minds by our own power. This would be in contradiction to the clearly expressed judgment of the apostle. Hence, relying on our free will, we feel secure and doze, for we think that it is in our power to awaken in us a pious intention whenever we want to. Why, then, does the apostle pray: "And the Lord direct your hearts and bodies"20 (II Thess. 3:5)? And why does the church pray: "May our words always be spoken and our thoughts and works always be directed to the end that thy righteousness be done"?21 But their thoughts are the snares of the unrighteous about which it is written in Ps. 5:9: "Their heart is a snare,"22 and in Prov. 11:6:
"The unrighteous shall be caught in their own snares."
No, you godless fellows, no! This is not the way!23 What you must do it this: Go into your chamber and fall on your knees and pray to God with all your strength that he give you the intention that you so presumptuously tried to arouse in yourself. You cannot live by the security that you conceived from and in yourself but only by that which in his mercy he gives to you in answer to your expectant prayer.
The whole error with which we are here concerned is this: we fail to take into consideration that, in order to be acceptable in God's sight, we must do all this, not under the pressure of necessity or because we are disturbed and agitated by fear, but so that it may please God we must do it because we are animated by a joyful and utterly free willingness. For he that does this in such a manner that, if it were possible, he would not want to do it, in reality does nothing, all things being equal: Yet he does do it and he thinks that he did enough by having done it, and his conscience is clear.
But if he failed to do it, he has a bad conscience.
This fault can everywhere be found also among the monks.
They feel secure and are free from all compunction in what they are doing, even if they do it without gladness but under compulsion or from necessity, fear, or sheer habit. But if they neglected to do something they were supposed to do, they go to confession and do penance. The only difference between these two attitudes is this, that in the first case they cover up their wickedness by outward activity and do not recognize the weakness of their will that underlies this activism. But in the other case, they do indeed rec20 In the Pauline letter, the words "and bodies" are lacking. Luther quotes from the Breviary, where the addition is used. (Cf. Ficker, p. 501, n. 10.)
21 This too is a quotation from the Breviary.
22 Quoted according to Col. Hebraeus of Faber's Quincuplex 23 "Non sic, Impii, non sic!"
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS ognize their fault; only they repent more of what they failed to do than of the lukewarmness of their will.
In everything we do, therefore, we should not apply our mind to what we did or still must do, or to what we did not do or should not do, or to what good we did or did not accomplish, or to what evil we did or did not do, but we should be concerned about the quality and strength of the will and the depth and breadth of the joy in our heart that motivated everything we did and must inspire all we still have to do.
In this sense, the apostle says in the last chapter of First Corinthians that he had much entreated Apollos, though he could have compelled him. And yet he says: "I much entreated him to come to you, and indeed it was not his will." (I Cor. 16:12.) In the same way, he beseeches Philemon on behalf of his slave, though he could have given him orders, so "that your good," he says, "might n6t be of necessity but voluntarily" (Philemon 14).
But nowadays the children who are princes and the effeminate that rule the church24 know nothing better to do than to coerce their subjects with severity and force, whereas they should prudently proceed in such a way that they would first make an effort to win their voluntary compliance, and only if they then refused, they would use means to shame and frighten them.
Now the substance of this whole error is the Pelagian belief. For although there are now none that profess Pelagianism and call themselves Pelagians, there are very many who in fact and in what they believe are Pelagians even if they are not aware of it.
For example, there are those who think that unless one attributes to the freedom of decision,25 before grace, "the power to do what is in him," one sins, in case he sins, because God forces him to sin so that he, therefore, sins necessarily. Even though it is altogther impious to think so, they are so sure of themselves and so bold as to reckon that if they form a good intention, they will infallibly obtain God's infused grace. Thereupon they go about with the feeling of great security and, of course, they are certain that the good works they do are acceptable to God. They do not feel that they need to implore grace, because they are no longer fearful or anxious. They are also free from any fear that by being of this mind they are perhaps in the wrong, but they are certain that they are right in what they are doing (Isa., ch. 44),26
2 4 Cf. Isa. 3:4: "And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate shall rule over them/' Albrecht von Brandenburg became archbishop of Magdeburg when he was twenty-three years old; a year later (1514), he became archbishop of Mainz and an elector of the empire.
25 "Libertas arbitrii"
2 6 Luther is thinking here of Isa. 44:20 (which he cites later on): "He will not say: Perhaps there is a lie in my right hand."
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN Why? Because they do not understand that God lets the ungodly sin even when they do good works. Certainly, they are then not forced to commit a sin, but they are doing only what they want to do according to their good intention. If they did understand this, they would be filled with the same fear that was in Job and they would say with him: "I feared all my works" (Job 9:28); and another again says: "Blessed is the man that is always fearful" (Prov.
28:14). Hence they that really do good works do not a single one of them without asking themselves: Does God's grace really act here together with me? How can I be certain that my good intention is from God? How can I know that what I am doing is really my doing or that what is in me is acceptable to God? These here know that man cannot do anything from himself.
Hence, it is utterly absurd and it means strongly to support the Pelagian error to hold the view that is expressed in the well-known statement: "God infallibly infuses grace in one who does what is in him"27 if the phrase "to do what is in him" is to be understood to mean "to do or to be able to do anything." Hence, it is not to be wondered at that almost the whole church is undermined, namely, by the trust one puts into that which this one sentence expresses.
Meanwhile, everyone goes ahead and sins, because at any time he can freely decide to do what is in him and therefore also obtain grace. Therefore, they go about without fear because they think that at the proper time they will do what is in them and obtain grace. It is with respect to them that it is said in Isa. 44:20: "Nor will they say: Perhaps there is a lie in my right hand," and in Prov. 14:16: "A wise man fears and declines from evil; the fool leaps over and is confident," i.e., he does not fear that "perhaps there is a lie in his right hand" and he is not afraid that his good is perhaps evil, but he is confident and feels secure.
This is why also the apostle Peter commands: "Fear God" (I Peter 2:17) and why Paul says: "Knowing therefore the fear of God, we use persuasion to men" (II Cor. 5:11) and again: "With fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phil. 2:12). And the psalmist says: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling" (Ps. 2:11). How can one fear God or one's works if one does not regard them as bad and if one does not mistrust them? Fear comes from evil. Hence, the saints are full of anxious
27"Facienti, quod in se est, infallibiliter Deus infundit gratiam/* Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa TkeoL, II, 1; q. 112; 0. 3: "Videtur quod ex necessitate detur gratia . . . facienti quod in se est . . . homo infallibiliter gratiam consequitur"; Gabriel Biel, Expositio canonis missae, lect. 59P (Ficker, p.
503, n. 2); Haec facienti Deus gratiam suam tribuit necessario (quoted from Alexander of Hales, II Sent., d. 22, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 1).
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS desire for God's grace; they know that they must constantly implore it. They do not rely on their good intention or on the diligence with which they endeavor to do what is right, but they are in constant fear that their works may still be evil. Humbled by this fear they ask and sigh for grace and by this humility they win
Worst of all, therefore, nowadays is that kind of preacher who preaches about the signs of present grace in order to make people secure, when as a matter of fact it is fear and trembling that is the surest sign of grace while, conversely, it is the most evident sign of God's wrath if one is secure and self-confident. And yet everyone yearns for just this with an amazing eagerness!
So then, it is only through fear that grace can found, and it is grace that enables man voluntarily to do good works; and if he lacks it, he is unwilling to do them. Yet it is this cheerless unwillingness (if I may say so) that makes him unafraid, hard, and secure, for, even though he lacks grace and therefore the ability freely to do the good, he is able outwardly to do what, in his own eyes and before men, appears to be good.
I know and am confident in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. (Rom. 14:14.) This phrase "I am confident" must here not be understood in the sense of "hoping" but in the absolute sense, i.e., in the sense of "being secure and certain," yes, of "being bold" or "daring."
In this sense, the apostle himself said above (Rom. 10:20): "But Isaiah is bold and says," i.e., he speaks confidently and boldly.
Persons who are a little high-spirited are called in Latin "confidentes" ("confident") as, for instance, in Plautus;28 in German we call them "keck" (Then too, the apostle says in II Tim. 1:12: "I know the truth in which I have believed and I am certain," i.e.,
I am not deceived.) By the words "I know and am confident," the apostle therefore means to say, as we would put it in German:
"Ich weys und byn keck, darffs kecklich sagen."29 Otherwise, i.e., if he wished that "to be confident" should be understood in terms of "to hope," he should have said: I have confidence in the Lord
Jesus.30 But what he does say is: "I am confident in the Lord Jesus,"31 i.e., because of the fact that I am in Christ, I feel bold.
He uses this form of expression suggesting boldness on account 28 Plautus, Amphitr., I, 1, 1: "Qui me alter est audacior homo, aut qui con* fidentiorV' ("What other man is more daring and more confident than I?").
29 "Ich weiss und bin keck; ich darf es kecklich ( = kiihnlich) sagen."
80 "Confido in dominum Jesum" ( = accusative) 81 "•.. in domino Jesu" (ablative).
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN of the anxiety of some who were timid and diffident with respect to the affirmation he makes here and then also because of the false apostles who taught the opposite.
I know and am confident in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common of itself; but to him that esteems anything to be common, to him it is common. (Rom. 14:14.)
"Common" is the same as "unclean." But according to the Hebrew way of speaking, this word is also the opposite of that which signifies something "holy," "separated," "set apart." In this sense, it says in Ps. 4:3: "The Lord has made his holy one wonderful." Some translate this as follows (according to Reuchlin's explanation of its proper meaning):32 "God has set him apart to whom he gave his mercy and his grace and whom he sanctified."
In this same sense, also, the apostle says in Rom. 1:1 that he was "separated unto the gospel of God," i.e., that he was sanctified away from a common occupation to the service of the gospel. For the same reason, it is figuratively said in the law: "Sanctify unto me every first-born" (Ex. 13:2), and again: "I have separated you from other people" (Lev. 20:24). The same expression is used there frequently. So then, what is not thus separated is called in Hebrew
"common" or "mean." Hence, it was in connection with further use that the word "separated" came to mean "clean," "holy,"
"pure," and "mean," by contrast, "unclean," "profane," "impure."
In this sense, it is written in Acts 10:15 and 11:9: "That which God has cleansed, do not call common." If "common" and "unclean" did not mean the same thing, the passage should read:
That which God has cleansed, do not call unclean.
None lives to himself. (Rom. 14:7.) The apostle argues from a major premise. For if we do not live to ourselves or belong to ourselves, and this is what is greater, how much less do we eat or drink to ourselves, or do or suffer anything to ourselves; but everything is the Lord's. Hence, he says in I Cor.
6:19: "Or know you not that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and that you are not your own?" And again: "Glorify
God in your body and your spirit, which are God's" (I Cor. 6:20); and in Gal. 2:20: "And I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me."
Let every man abound in his own sense. (Rom. 14:5.) The holy fathers and teachers wrongly use this saying here and there in support of the general opinion according to which every82 Cf. Reuchlin, Lex. Heb. Cf. Ficker, p. 505, n. 2.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS one must abound in his own sense as he tries to understand the But the apostle means to say here something special: Every man should be content in his own thinking, or, as we commonly say, in his own feeling, and he should not judge another in his thinking and feeling, nor should the other despise him in return, lest perhaps someone who is weak in faith but has an understanding, feeling, or conscience of his own might be disturbed and scandalized by someone else's understanding and proceed to act counter to his own understanding and thus by changing his way of thought and action get into a conflict with himself. For although on account of his weakness he cannot judge otherwise than that this or that is not permitted, he nevertheless does now what the strong are doing in order that they should not despise him; yet according to his own judgment, he should not do it. The apostle deals with this in I Cor. 8:4, 7: "But as for meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world. . . . But there is not knowledge in everyone. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol: eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak" (i.e., being unable to judge in any other way than that this is forbidden), "is defiled," because they eat against their own judgment.
The cause of this defilement is the pride of the strong: under the very eyes of the weak they eat the meats sacrificed to an idol, and in doing so they look upon them with contempt; instead, they should bear with them and instruct them or, in case they cannot take instruction on account of their weakness, they should become weak with them for love's sake and, like them, abstain from eating, meanwhile keeping their faith inwardly in their conscience.
For although one is free to do anything, he must not make a display of his freedom, and this for the sake of the salvation of his brother. It is better for him to be outwardly deprived of his freedom than that the weak brother should perish. For if one despises him because he has a weak conscience, this cannot mean anything else than that one tries to force him by this contempt to do what his judgment tells him he should not do. Because of the diversity of consciences, therefore, it can happen that one man sins and another does the right thing in one and the same action which, as such, is allowed.84 In this sense the apostle says: "Let every man abound in his own conscience," i.e., let him be certain, quiet, and firm; the strong should not change his faith because of the 33 Ficker says (p. 505, n. 22) that such an interpretation of this passage cannot be found in the exegetical writings of the fathers or the Scholastics. fcOMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN scruples of one who is weak; nor should the one who is weak act against his own judgment for the sake of the strong; he should let them do what they want and satisfy his own conscience.
/ know and am confident in the Lord Jesus that nothing is common of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be common, to him it is common. For if because of your meat your brother be grieved, you do not walk according to love. Destroy not with your meat him for whom Christ died. Let not, then, your good be blasphemed. For the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that in this serves Christ pleases God and is approved of men. Therefore, let us follow after the things that are of peace, and keep the things that are of edification one toward another. Destroy not the work of God for meat. All things indeed are clean, but it is evil for that man who eats with offense. It is good not to eat flesh and not to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother is offended, or scandalized, or made weak. Have you faith? Have it to yourself before God. Blessed is he that condemns not himself in that which he allows. But he that discerns, if he eat, is condemned, because not of faith. For all that is not of faith is sin. (Rom. 14:14-23.)
Nothing is common by itself. (Rom. 14:14) We can relate "by itself," so it seems, either to "the Lord Jesus" or to "common." In other words, nothing is common by Jesus Christ or nothing is common by itself or according to its nature and inner substance, but only in someone's opinion and conscience. And this is more in accord with the following sentence which reads but to him that esteems anything common, to him it is common. For even if one were to understand the sentence to say that nothing is common by Christ, one would have to imply the thought that only to him that esteems it so is it common by Christ. Hence, the translator35 should have avoided the ambiguity of the Greek text and should have said
"as such" instead of "by itself," as Erasmus does.
So then, let us sum up this chapter. It contains two injunctions:
First: the strong must not despise the weak.
Second: they must not give offense to them.
Either one of these attitudes is contrary to love. For love bears the weak because it does not seek its own but the needs of the weak. The apostle exemplifies this in himself by saying: "My daily solicitude for all the churches: Who is weak, and I am not weak?
Who is scandalized, and I am not on fire?" (II Cor. 11:28-29) and:
"To the weak I became weak. I became all things to all men that 35 I.e., the Vulgate.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS I might gain all" (I Cor. 9:22). Now the passage before us clearly shows that he could be thus on fire (and he certainly did not let himself be scandalized together with the scandalized), for he speaks here in passionate words against those who do despise and scandalize the weak.
This is how he impresses the first part on their minds: I. He says: God has taken him to him. (Rom. 14:3.) With this very weighty word he checks them. They now have to face up to this, that he that despises or judges someone else despises and judges not merely a man but God. By administering such a strong shock to them, he wants to urge them on to practice humility and mutual forbearance.
II. Who are you that judge another man's servant? (Rom. 14:4.) It is against the law of nature and the ways of mankind36 to judge another man's servant. Hence, their behavior is not only a defiance of God but it is also contrary to all human judgment and feeling.
And now he proceeds to demolish also their motives:
(1) that the one who is weak thinks that the one who is strong is falling, and that the strong one thinks that it is the weak one who has fallen. To this he replies: In what way does this concern you? To his own lord he falls, or if he stands, he stands to his own lord (Rom. 14:4). You are therefore not free to judge and despise another, even though what you think is true, because you are not allowed to spurn him.
(2) That they think: Who knows whether he will stand? To this he replies: God is able to make him stand. (Rom. 14:4.) (3) All we do, are, and live for, we do, live, and are to God; therefore we must not despise one another. For none of us, he says, lives to himself. (Rom. 14:7.)
(4) To this end Christ died and rose again that he might be the Lord of all. (Rom. 14:3.) Hence, it is against Christ to claim the right to judge and to despise others.
(5) He faces them with the judgment seat of Christ (Rom.
14:10). For there we must all be judged. Notice, then, with what thunderbolts he frightens us away from despising one another and especially the weak! He points to God, man, Christ's Passion and Kingship, and to the Last Judgment—there is not anything that he does not bring to bear on his argument.
With similar sharpness he makes the second part convincing:
I. For if because of your meat, your brother be grieved, you do not walk now according to love. (Rom. 14:15.) (1) Note here how he expresses the climax and how he makes his emphasis in the individual words. He says, "because of your
80 "Contra ius naturae et omnes homines est"
ROMANS CHAPTER FOURTEEN meat," that is, for so trivial a matter, you despise the eternal salvation of your brother. It would be less bad if you did so on account of money or honor or at least for the sake of your life and the well-being of your body or for the sake of anything else that is more desirable than food which is only for your present use and enjoyment. These words, then, are a sharp rebuke: he that despises his brother because of what he eats gets a severe scolding for his lovelessness.
(2) He is equally emphatic in saying "your brother." He does not say: "your enemy." Nor does he say at least "friend" or "acquaintance," but "brother," one to whom a Christian owes more than to anyone else, since he is his brother, almost the same as his neighbor. Why, then, should he be more concerned about his belly and his gullet, which are bound to perish, than about his brother who will live in glory forever?
(3) He is "grieved," disturbed, wounded in his conscience. This is more than if he were deprived of his money or goods or even if he were wounded. And this for the sake of meat! Furthermore, notice that he does not say: if you grieve him, but "if he is grieved." Thereby he skillfully rejects their excuse in case they should say: It is not my fault; I have not done anything to him. I have not grieved him; I am doing only what I have the right to do. Have I not the right to do what I want with my own things?
This is exactly what the lawyers of today mean by justice as they interpret or rather, pervert, their laws.
But it is not enough that you live according to your rights and that you do what you want with your own things, unless, according to God's commandments you also make provision for your brother.
Indeed, you do not have the right and the power to do what you want with your own things, for they are no longer only yours when your brother is offended by them. To be sure, they are yours temporarily, but, spiritually, they belong to your brother because he cleaves to them with his scruples of conscience. Hence, you act according to an alien right, i.e., you commit a wrong, if you act in such a way that your brother is grieved thereby. Thus also today everybody is concerned only for what is his and what he is entitled to and not for what he owes to his neighbor and for that which would be expedient both for him and his neighbor. "All things are lawful to me," the apostle says, "but they are not all expedient and they do not all edify." (I Cor. 6:12.)
(4) "You do not walk now according to love," in other words: you walk in vain even though you move about in great and wonderful affairs, for as it says in I Cor. 13:1-2: "If I have not love, I am nothing." There is something terrifying about the fact
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS that because of a bit of food one can render all his good works useless. And yet, the world is full of fools who pay no heed to love but wear themselves out with many works in order that the saying of the Preacher may be fulfilled: "The labor of fools shall afflict them that know not how to go to the city" (Eccl. 10:15).
II. Destroy not with your meat him for whom Christ died (Rom.
14:15), in other words: it is comparatively insignificant that you hurt him, offend him, and deny your love to him; what is much more important is that you are also a cruel murderer, because you ruin your brother; indeed, and this is the height of cruelty, you are a fratricide. Furthermore, and this likewise surpasses every kind of cruelty as well as of ingratitude, you despise, in your brother, the death of Christ, for he died certainly also for him.
This is what it means to despise your brother and to walk without love! First Corinthians 8:12: "You sin against Christ when you wound their weak conscience/' and I Cor. 8:11: "Through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ has died."
III. Let not, then, your good be blasphemed. (Rom. 14:16.) In other words: you sin against the church as well as against yourselves. For your good, i.e., what you are in God and what you have from God, will impress the heathen in such a way that they flee from it rather than desire to obtain it. Thus you will be the cause that many will perish who otherwise might be saved. It is a weighty and serious matter that not only your evil but also your good is blasphemed because of a little bit of food. What the apostle here calls "good" is everything we are through Christ.
What he means to say, then, is this: Be careful that the heathen do not berate your faith, your religion, and all your Christianity, for its good reputation should attract them and its actual goodness should edify them—through you. In this sense, he says in II Cor. 6:3: "That our ministry be not blamed." We have sufficiently dealt with this in the twelfth chapter, under the heading:
"Providing good things" (Rom. 12:17).
IV. For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink. (Rom.
14:17.) In other words: you believe in vain that the Kingdom of God is yours if, as also frequently happens today, you disturb the peace because of what you eat and if you are so eager to defend meat and drink, as if the Kingdom of God consisted of them.
Outward food stirs up disturbances to a greater extent than inward religion makes for peace, and they continue to prevail in times of peace and war. But with respect to God, the Kingdom of God is righteousness, which is realized by faith or trust; with respect to the neighbor, it is peace, which is realized through ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN mutual love, forbearance, and caring one for another; with respect to oneself, it is joy in the Holy Spirit, which is realized through hope and by a hearty trusting in God, and not by what one does on behalf of the neighbor or for God's sake. In relation to yourself be agreeable; in relation to your neighbor be peaceful; but in relation to God be righteous. But nothing disturbs this peace so much as an act by which one offends and scandalizes his brother, especially with respect to things that wound the conscience. The word "peace" must here be understood, therefore, in several meanings:
(1) "Peace with God/' according to Rom. 5:1, for example:
"Being justified, therefore, by faith, we have peace with God."
This peace is broken by sinning.
(2) "Peace with oneself/9 which one may have through joy in the Holy Spirit and by hope and patience, according to Rom.
12:12, for example: "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation."
This peace is disturbed by impatience and by an impatient acceptance of tribulations, i.e., by the desire for a carnal and useless peace.
(3) "Peace with one's neighbor/' which one may have by satisfying and edifying one another in mutual love. This peace is broken by the contempt of another man's weakness and by the disturbance of conscience, namely, of the conscience of those who have peace with God and, through faith and patience, with themselves, but not with their neighbor, i.e., they do not leave others in peace. The apostle, therefore, wants us not only to be at peace, but he also wants us to make peace by being calm and unassuming in our relations with one another. This is why there follows now this sentence:
For he that in this serves Christ, pleases God (Rom. 14:18) (because of his righteousness) "and pleases men" (because of his peacefulness). Here he puts the joy in the Holy Spirit in the last place. For one must first seek God and then not what concerns one's own self but that which concerns one's neighbor. Hence, we commonly say of people who are restless and disturb others that "they have no peace," because they do not leave others in peace but upset them. In I Thess. 5:12-14, the apostle calls them unquiet; he says: "Have peace with them that are over you." "Rebuke the unquiet, comfort the fainthearted, support the weak, be patient toward all men." And in Acts 15:19, James, speaking in the same vein, says: "I judge that they who from the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted," namely, by being required to observe the law. And in Gal. 5:12, the apostle says: "I would they were even cut off who trouble you." And in II Thess.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS 3:6, he goes so far as to say: "Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly." Hence, this sort of people are "not approved of men" (Rom. 14:18) but, rather, displease them.
And now he says of this peace: Therefore let us follow after the things that are of peace (Rom. 14:19), i.e., the things that do not upset others but edify them and make them quiet. And what are these things? The only answer to this question is this: Love teaches us what they are as their own time and place demand. They cannot be specifically detailed.37
V. Destroy not the work of God for meat's sake. (Rom. 14:20.) The apostle means by "work of God" the brother as, for example, in I Cor. 3:9: "You are God's husbandry, you are God's building" and farther on, in the same letter, ch. 9:1: "Are you not my work in the Lord?" and in Heb. 3:6: "Christ is the Son in his own house, which house we are." And again in I Cor. 3:17: "The temple of God is holy, which you are. But if any man violate the temple of God, him let God destroy." And who else is it who does violate it but the know-it-all moralists.38 It is with reference to them that the apostle then immediately goes on to say: "Let no man deceive you:39 if any man among you seems to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise" (I Cor.
Understand, then, what it means "to destroy the work of God for the sake of meat": not merely to offend God, but also to fight against God and to destroy what he builds up, to be constantly engaged in a war with God (like the legendary giants who fought with the gods).
All that is not of faith is sin. (Rom. 14:23.) (Cf. Blessed Augustine, Against Julian, Book 4, Chapter 3, letter The apostle speaks here of faith in a very general sense, but in doing so he nevertheless alludes to that particular faith in Christ, apart from which there is no righteousness but only sin. Now faith is faith in God, it is faith in one's neighbor, and it is faith in oneself. By faith in God one is made righteous, because he acknowledges God to be truthful as he believes him and trusts in him.41 And by faith in the neighbor, he comes to be regarded as a* "Charitas haec pro tempore et loco docet. Non enim possunt particularity tradi."
88 "Sapientes iustitiarii."
89 Paul says: deceive "himself."
40 Cf. Augustine, Contra JuL, IV, 3, 24.
41 "Quia Deum verificat, cui credit et confidiU"
ROMANS, CHAPTER FOURTEEN faithful, truthful, and trustworthy, because he stands in the same relation to his neighbor as God does to him. Nevertheless, faith in the neighbor is also called an active faith,42 because it believes the neighbor. What characterizes this faith is this: if one's actions are different from one's faith or if one has doubts about his neighbor, he commits an offense against him, because he does not fulfill what he promised to him. In the same way, he sins also against God if he does not act in accordance with his faith in what he was told. In the same way, he believes also in himself and the dictates of his conscience; but he acts against it when he does not act according to what he believes; then he acts against his faith.
Thus "everything that is not from faith, is sin," because it goes counter to faith and conscience. In view of this, one must take great care not to act against his conscience.
Now the question arises whether a godless person sins, when he does not believe, because he does not act from faith and therefore also not against his conscience or, rather, because he believes falsely. When he does something wrong from this false faith of his, does he then not sin?
Our answer is as follows: The word "Everything that does not come from faith is sin" means that everyone who does not want to sin must believe. For only faith is without sin. Therefore, he that does something he does not believe sins. For example, he that eats what he thinks is unclean sins, not so much because he sins against his conviction as because he lacks the faith by which he would know that it is not unclean. The fact that the faith he has is weak, and that he lacks a strong faith, causes him to sin if he eats. He that has no faith must, therefore, not eat, i.e., he must not do a work of faith. For an act of faith must proceed from faith. Otherwise, he will commit a sin when he eats, because he does not believe that it is allowed but thinks that it is forbidden (this is his lack of faith) and that he acts against his conscience. An additional inference from this would be the statement that everyone who lacks faith sins even when he does something good. This is what this saying means.
But if you object and say: If this means that a weak person sins not so much because he acts against his conscience as because he does not act from faith, then he sins whether or not he eats, because the deficiency of faith will always be there, I answer as follows: So it is indeed; he is always in sin, i.e., in lack of faith.
42 The phrase is parallel to the term iustitia activa (active righteousness = the righteousness of good works), which is in contrast to iustitia passiva (passive righteousness = the righteousness of faith). The latter "receives" from without; the former actively goes out from within.
LUTHER; LECTURES ON ROMANS But, nevertheless, one must not stimulate him further so that he commits a still greater sin. For the weakness of his faith is a venial sin, because God does not reckon it to him as a mortal sin, although it is a mortal sin by its nature. For God has taken him up in order to render him perfect and whole just as the good Samaritan did with the man who was left half-dead (Luke 10:33 ff.).
Therefore one must not stimulate him to act according to this weakness of faith, but he must be cared for and nourished in order that he may grow in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to what Saint Peter says in concluding his second letter:
"Grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ"
This corresponds exactly to the situation of one who is baptized or is doing penance and yet remains in the weakness of concupiscence. Though his weakness violates the law "You shall not covet" and certainly is a mortal sin, God in his mercy does not reckon it as such because of the fact that he has begun to heal the sinner.
He is, therefore, in sin, but he must not be given the occasion to act in accordance with his weakness, but instead he must be cared for and made whole. Otherwise, he would certainly sin in all his actions, because he would not act out of chastity and his weakness would become a mortal sin because he manifested it in action, even though by the grace of God this weakness is only a venial sin.
Just so also the man of a weak faith, whom we spoke of before, would obey his weakness if he did something that would not be of faith.
In this passage, the word "faith" must therefore be understood in two ways: One way would be to take it to mean belief and conscience. This is how many interpret this passage. Another way would be, after the fashion of the apostle, simply to regard it as identical with faith in Christ.43 And, with due respect for these other interpreters, I thus understand this passage. For just as one can act against his conscience in faith, one can also do so in every other virtue. One who is not sufficiently continent acts against his conscience if he fornicates, for it dictates to him to be chaste and not to fornicate. And yet because he is weak, he can be made to stumble and as he acts against the dictate of his conscience, he falls.
Just so he that is weak in faith does and does not believe. He does the right because he believes, and he sins because he does not believe. As soon as he is inveigled not to believe, he sins.